5 ms·

Did the author not sign the binary?[1] Why not? Is it really just because of the $99/yr developer program fee? And if so.. is it starting to sound like a bette

Did the author not sign the binary?[1] Why not? Is it really just because of the $99/yr developer program fee? And if so.. is it starting to sound like a better value now? [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Security/Conceptual/CodeSigningGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Se...

voltagex_ 9y ago
$99 for Apple, $300+ for Windows. It adds up. I suspect Handbrake gets plenty of donations, but most projects don't. Heaven help you if you want to build a signed driver for Windows.
- hirsin 9y ago
  $300 for Windows? Where does that come from? Submitting to the Store should handle the signing for you (not that I know if it does).
  - i336_ 9y ago
    I think this is for signing arbitrary EXEs. I'd always been curious how that worked, TIL it's that expensive though :(
    - user5994461 9y ago
      It's peanuts to distribute your software to millions of people.
      - i336_ 9y ago
        Yeah, fair point. I guess I was erroneously looking at that from the standpoint of the financial scale I'm working with right now (don't have a job, etc) and didn't catch myself. (Hmm. I'll keep an eye on that.) If distributing a commercial (or enterprise) application then yeah it's peanuts (or a rounding error). Good point.
        user5994461 9y ago
        Related story about app stores. There was a time when distributing content on Steam was free and anyone could do it. This resulted in a lot of shit stuff, copied materials and fraud being distributed. They introduced a $100 publication fee. As the story goes, it was very effective to stop abuse.
        i336_ 9y ago
        Interesting tidbit to file away, thanks. Irrefutable point though - it's one thing to want something for free as a consumer, but quite a different story as a creator or developer. I totally get the rationale behind charging to keep quality high. Charging also creates a contract and with that contract be able to enforce a minimum standard. That helps greatly too.
- Buge 9y ago
  It's $180 from Instant SSL.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    $84 from K Software.
    - voltagex_ 9y ago
      Unless you want to sign drivers. I've had a grand total of $20USD donated, only $64 left to go before I can sign my toy applications.
      - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        I used mine to sign a printer driver.
- erikbye 9y ago
  > I suspect Handbrake gets plenty of donations "The HandBrake and HandBrake Documentation projects are not accepting monetary donations. Please instead consider donating to the VideoLAN non-profit organization and the Blender Foundation." https://handbrake.fr/docs/credits.html https://handbrake.fr/docs/credits.html
runeks 9y ago
For Transmission, the infected binary was signed as well: https://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/08/30/osxkeydnap-spreads-via-signed-transmission-application/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/08/30/osxkeydnap-spreads... Signing doesn't help unless you know which public key to trust.
- abalone 9y ago
  Signing does help! Apple can revoke the certificate the instant the malware is discovered, blocking all future installs. Whereas Handbrake is going to rely on XProtect[1] which entails Apple refreshing all Macs in the universe at some delay. While I'm at it, distributing through the Mac App Store would have added further protection against this attack on a couple levels. 1) It's harder to compromise with a MITM attack in the first place. 2) macOS wouldn't install an update signed by another party like this. [1] "We have been informed that the process to update the definitions for OSX's XProtect feature started this morning, so this should start rolling out to machines automatically soon if not already."
  - rovr138 9y ago
    Okay, but the damaged would have already been done. >Further Actions Required > Based on the information we have, you must also change all the passwords that may reside in your OSX KeyChain or any browser password stores.
    - abalone 9y ago
      Not exactly. Signing would have minimized the overall damage by letting Gatekeeper halt all installs from pretty much the moment the malware was discovered. And distributing through the Mac App Store would have prevented this MITM attack in the first place.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danieldk 9y ago
I have an older version of Handbrake installed: % codesign -vv HandBrake.app HandBrake.app: code object is not signed at all In architecture: x86_64 However, code signing only goes so far. In there past, malware has been spread in signed application bundles as well [1]. The only good solution is sandboxing. Unfortunately, virtually nobody sandboxes macOS apps outside the App Store (where it is a requirement). These days I think twice before installing/purchasing an application outside the Mac App store. [1] http://gizmodo.com/mac-bittorrent-client-transmission-gets-infected-with-m-1785957214 http://gizmodo.com/mac-bittorrent-client-transmission-gets-i...

voltagex_ 9y ago

$99 for Apple, $300+ for Windows. It adds up. I suspect Handbrake gets plenty of donations, but most projects don't. Heaven help you if you want to build a signed driver for Windows.

hirsin 9y ago
$300 for Windows? Where does that come from? Submitting to the Store should handle the signing for you (not that I know if it does).
- i336_ 9y ago
  I think this is for signing arbitrary EXEs. I'd always been curious how that worked, TIL it's that expensive though :(
  - user5994461 9y ago
    It's peanuts to distribute your software to millions of people.
    - i336_ 9y ago
      Yeah, fair point. I guess I was erroneously looking at that from the standpoint of the financial scale I'm working with right now (don't have a job, etc) and didn't catch myself. (Hmm. I'll keep an eye on that.) If distributing a commercial (or enterprise) application then yeah it's peanuts (or a rounding error). Good point.
      - user5994461 9y ago
        Related story about app stores. There was a time when distributing content on Steam was free and anyone could do it. This resulted in a lot of shit stuff, copied materials and fraud being distributed. They introduced a $100 publication fee. As the story goes, it was very effective to stop abuse.
        i336_ 9y ago
        Interesting tidbit to file away, thanks. Irrefutable point though - it's one thing to want something for free as a consumer, but quite a different story as a creator or developer. I totally get the rationale behind charging to keep quality high. Charging also creates a contract and with that contract be able to enforce a minimum standard. That helps greatly too.
Buge 9y ago
It's $180 from Instant SSL.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  $84 from K Software.
  - voltagex_ 9y ago
    Unless you want to sign drivers. I've had a grand total of $20USD donated, only $64 left to go before I can sign my toy applications.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      I used mine to sign a printer driver.
erikbye 9y ago
> I suspect Handbrake gets plenty of donations "The HandBrake and HandBrake Documentation projects are not accepting monetary donations. Please instead consider donating to the VideoLAN non-profit organization and the Blender Foundation." https://handbrake.fr/docs/credits.html https://handbrake.fr/docs/credits.html

runeks 9y ago

For Transmission, the infected binary was signed as well: https://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/08/30/osxkeydnap-spreads-via-signed-transmission-application/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/08/30/osxkeydnap-spreads... Signing doesn't help unless you know which public key to trust.

abalone 9y ago
Signing does help! Apple can revoke the certificate the instant the malware is discovered, blocking all future installs. Whereas Handbrake is going to rely on XProtect[1] which entails Apple refreshing all Macs in the universe at some delay. While I'm at it, distributing through the Mac App Store would have added further protection against this attack on a couple levels. 1) It's harder to compromise with a MITM attack in the first place. 2) macOS wouldn't install an update signed by another party like this. [1] "We have been informed that the process to update the definitions for OSX's XProtect feature started this morning, so this should start rolling out to machines automatically soon if not already."
- rovr138 9y ago
  Okay, but the damaged would have already been done. >Further Actions Required > Based on the information we have, you must also change all the passwords that may reside in your OSX KeyChain or any browser password stores.
  - abalone 9y ago
    Not exactly. Signing would have minimized the overall damage by letting Gatekeeper halt all installs from pretty much the moment the malware was discovered. And distributing through the Mac App Store would have prevented this MITM attack in the first place.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danieldk 9y ago

I have an older version of Handbrake installed: % codesign -vv HandBrake.app HandBrake.app: code object is not signed at all In architecture: x86_64 However, code signing only goes so far. In there past, malware has been spread in signed application bundles as well [1]. The only good solution is sandboxing. Unfortunately, virtually nobody sandboxes macOS apps outside the App Store (where it is a requirement). These days I think twice before installing/purchasing an application outside the Mac App store. [1] http://gizmodo.com/mac-bittorrent-client-transmission-gets-infected-with-m-1785957214 http://gizmodo.com/mac-bittorrent-client-transmission-gets-i...