6 ms·

That’s System Integrity Protection. Under it, system files cannot be deleted or modified, even with sudo. It protects down to the block level, so even if you tr

That’s System Integrity Protection. Under it, system files cannot be deleted or modified, even with sudo. It protects down to the block level, so even if you try to bypass the file system and write to blocks composing system files directly you’ll get an error. This can be disabled but I wouldn’t advise doing so unless you have a really good reason to.

duaneb 11y ago
Modifying /usr isn't THAT unusual.
- masklinn 11y ago
  The FHS defines /usr thus[0]: > /usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Pretty much all modern unices consider that /usr, aside from /usr/local (which the FHS defines as "for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated."[1]), is part of the operating system. It is thus very much unusual to modify /usr[2], and in line with current practices to lock it down tightly. /usr/local is not under SIP. [0] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04.html#purpose18 http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04.html#pu... [1] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html [2] in fact the FHS specifically notes[3]: > Software placed in /usr may be overwritten by system upgrades. For this reason, local software must not be placed outside of /usr/local without good reason. "we specify that the system can overwrite or remove anything you put there" is pretty much a dead ringer for "modifying this is unusual" [3] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html#ftn.idm236091898144 http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html...
  - bashinator 11y ago
    The FHS is, at best, only tangentially related to anything going on in a Mac OS X system.
- mnem 11y ago
  It's not everything under /usr. For example, I can install things to /usr/local/bin without issue.
teej 11y ago
I'm glad game center.app is so well protected.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 11y ago
  It ships on the system. Everything that ships on the system should be protected. Among other things, it prevents system updates from having problems when the apps they're trying to patch are missing.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The updater could just fall back to a non-delta update for anything that's been modified. That would help with other problems too, like storage corruption. SIP is supposed to be about security, not keeping updaters from doing a bit more work.
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    > Everything that ships on the system should be protected. No. Not Game Center.app. Grand parent is right, this is bloatware that neither he, nor I, nor many others want. If I wanted a bloatware Windows box I would have bought one. There's no excuse for making this app non-removable.
    - kitsunesoba 11y ago
      It’s all a matter of opinion, but I’m not sure that “bloatware” is the appropriate term for bundled software that never runs unless it’s explicitly opened by the user, thus having negligible resource usage. Does that extra 4MB really bother you that much? Because that’s the only effect you’ll ever feel as a result of not deleting Game Center. On the other hand, if we’re talking about the junk that your average Windows or Android device comes preinstalled with that is either configured to run at startup and/or modifies the stock UI (TouchWiz for example), yeah, that’s definitely bloatware and it’s reprehensible to make that unremovable. That isn’t what Apple is doing, however.
on_ 11y ago
Thanks. I will disable it. Not to be rude, as I appreciate the advice, but what would you consider: > a really good reason? I think access to my own filesystem is good enough. I admit when I looked at the reviews, I made sure there were no major issues before upgrade but missed this "sys integrity" thing.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  Disabling it would increase the attack area for a malicious app that could somehow gain elevated access. Since it is possible to disable, why not disable it as-needed rather than always?
  - on_ 11y ago
    > why not disable it as needed i am. ;)
- outworlder 11y ago
  It is your filesystem, but these are system files. Is it really important to you to be able to muck around the OS? If it is, then you go find a way to disable the protections. Windows also has the System Integrity Protection equivalent.
  - on_ 11y ago
    Yes. I am disabling/removing shitty bloatware and removing apple phone home gor privacy.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      So you're compromising security to do it? Game Center is ~4MB, and you'll never remove all the potential "phone home" hooks without rewriting the OS. Your approach is akin to taking wheels off a car to reduce weight so it goes faster.
      - on_ 11y ago
thirdsun 11y ago
Could this be an issue for things like homebrew or ruby/rbenv? Reading about it, one might think 10.11 could have problems with someone trying to use anything but the system-shipped ruby version, or python, etc. On the other hand, maybe this question is rather stupid as I really can't see Apple scaring away the developer community in such an unnecessary way.
- msbarnett 11y ago
  > Could this be an issue for things like homebrew or ruby/rbenv? /usr/local is not one of the SIP protected paths. The idea behind SIP is to protect system binaries from being surreptitiously patched by malicious parties, not to make the system totally useless. > Reading about it, one might think 10.11 could have problems with someone trying to use anything but the system-shipped ruby version, or python, etc. Aside from being really stupid from a customer standpoint, what would be the security benefit of doing this?
- zyxley 11y ago
  The thing you name don't touch any system files for specifically this kind of reason.

duaneb 11y ago

Modifying /usr isn't THAT unusual.

masklinn 11y ago
The FHS defines /usr thus[0]: > /usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Pretty much all modern unices consider that /usr, aside from /usr/local (which the FHS defines as "for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated."[1]), is part of the operating system. It is thus very much unusual to modify /usr[2], and in line with current practices to lock it down tightly. /usr/local is not under SIP. [0] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04.html#purpose18 http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04.html#pu... [1] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html [2] in fact the FHS specifically notes[3]: > Software placed in /usr may be overwritten by system upgrades. For this reason, local software must not be placed outside of /usr/local without good reason. "we specify that the system can overwrite or remove anything you put there" is pretty much a dead ringer for "modifying this is unusual" [3] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html#ftn.idm236091898144 http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html...
- bashinator 11y ago
  The FHS is, at best, only tangentially related to anything going on in a Mac OS X system.
mnem 11y ago
It's not everything under /usr. For example, I can install things to /usr/local/bin without issue.

teej 11y ago

I'm glad game center.app is so well protected.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eridius 11y ago
It ships on the system. Everything that ships on the system should be protected. Among other things, it prevents system updates from having problems when the apps they're trying to patch are missing.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The updater could just fall back to a non-delta update for anything that's been modified. That would help with other problems too, like storage corruption. SIP is supposed to be about security, not keeping updaters from doing a bit more work.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > Everything that ships on the system should be protected. No. Not Game Center.app. Grand parent is right, this is bloatware that neither he, nor I, nor many others want. If I wanted a bloatware Windows box I would have bought one. There's no excuse for making this app non-removable.
  - kitsunesoba 11y ago
    It’s all a matter of opinion, but I’m not sure that “bloatware” is the appropriate term for bundled software that never runs unless it’s explicitly opened by the user, thus having negligible resource usage. Does that extra 4MB really bother you that much? Because that’s the only effect you’ll ever feel as a result of not deleting Game Center. On the other hand, if we’re talking about the junk that your average Windows or Android device comes preinstalled with that is either configured to run at startup and/or modifies the stock UI (TouchWiz for example), yeah, that’s definitely bloatware and it’s reprehensible to make that unremovable. That isn’t what Apple is doing, however.

on_ 11y ago

Thanks. I will disable it. Not to be rude, as I appreciate the advice, but what would you consider: > a really good reason? I think access to my own filesystem is good enough. I admit when I looked at the reviews, I made sure there were no major issues before upgrade but missed this "sys integrity" thing.

interpol_p 11y ago
Disabling it would increase the attack area for a malicious app that could somehow gain elevated access. Since it is possible to disable, why not disable it as-needed rather than always?
- on_ 11y ago
  > why not disable it as needed i am. ;)
outworlder 11y ago
It is your filesystem, but these are system files. Is it really important to you to be able to muck around the OS? If it is, then you go find a way to disable the protections. Windows also has the System Integrity Protection equivalent.
- on_ 11y ago
  Yes. I am disabling/removing shitty bloatware and removing apple phone home gor privacy.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    So you're compromising security to do it? Game Center is ~4MB, and you'll never remove all the potential "phone home" hooks without rewriting the OS. Your approach is akin to taking wheels off a car to reduce weight so it goes faster.
    - on_ 11y ago

thirdsun 11y ago

Could this be an issue for things like homebrew or ruby/rbenv? Reading about it, one might think 10.11 could have problems with someone trying to use anything but the system-shipped ruby version, or python, etc. On the other hand, maybe this question is rather stupid as I really can't see Apple scaring away the developer community in such an unnecessary way.

msbarnett 11y ago
> Could this be an issue for things like homebrew or ruby/rbenv? /usr/local is not one of the SIP protected paths. The idea behind SIP is to protect system binaries from being surreptitiously patched by malicious parties, not to make the system totally useless. > Reading about it, one might think 10.11 could have problems with someone trying to use anything but the system-shipped ruby version, or python, etc. Aside from being really stupid from a customer standpoint, what would be the security benefit of doing this?
zyxley 11y ago
The thing you name don't touch any system files for specifically this kind of reason.