9 ms·
> Note that in an upcoming release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer ID signed software to be notarized by Apple. Does this mean that anything distri
by jtokoph 8y ago
> Note that in an upcoming release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer ID signed software to be notarized by Apple.
Does this mean that anything distributed outside of the App Store will have to be approved by Apple? Will the App Store sandboxing rules apply to outside apps too?
- notafraudster 8y agoNo, that's not what it means. Currently there are three security tiers for applications on macOS: App Store, not App Store but cryptographically signed, and not cryptographically signed. All three can be run. That sentence means that in the future, the second category (applications which are not on the App Store but are cryptographically signed) will need you to generate a certificate with Apple. Nothing about the app store's sandboxing rules, and nothing about all applications -- you can run unsigned applications to your heart's content.
- api 8y agoIt's another slow gradual step toward total lockdown. I feel like eventually I'll have to abandon Mac, but for what? Linux is still flaky and Windows adware unless you spring for Enterprise. I would pay for a commercial Linux as polished as MacOS, but there may not be enough of me. (It could also have a list of officially supported hardware to at least approach the stability benefits of Apple's vertically integrated HW/SW stack.)
- Spivak 8y agoI mean RHEL Workstation is a very polished Linux environment. It might not be up to date enough for your needs but it's very stable and we'll documentated. Not the best for a laptop though. I would spring for Fedora or Ubuntu and deal with the lack of paid support for my own personal use but then again I've been using Linux for a while. Both options are perfectly stable desktops, it's really the commerical software support that will get you.
- morpheuskafka 8y agoUbuntu has Ubuntu Advantage paid support.
- solarkraft 8y agoElementary OS is quite polished and takes many cues from OSX.
- losteric 8y agoNot debating Apple's overall trajectory, but I think it's cynical to call this a step towards lockdown. Mitigating certificate forgery attacks ultimately increases trust in software distributed outside Apple's walled garden.
- ethbro 8y ago* Assuming Apple never decides to flip certain switches, after the OS infrastructure and hardware support are in place
- sneak 8y agoTurns out that even compiled software can be modified to suit the user’s intent, thankfully.
- ethbro 8y ago(Note: Not talking about Apple now, hypothetically...) How would one do this on a fully trust-chained system with processor support? Barring software bugs that allow for arbitrary code exec as the binary? Signed package + necessary keys embedded in silicon -> processor verfies signature at memory load -> processor disallows user privilege escalation to write to arbitrary memory
- thefounder 8y agoHow is this not lock-down? If Apple doesn't like VLC or whatever software competes with their interests they can simply not renew their membership.
- klodolph 8y agoAre you talking about the old policy? You can run unsigned apps. The new policy affects the process for signing apps.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
- wishinghand 8y agoI'm in the same spot as you and am eyeing Elementary OS.
- jjeaff 8y agoWhat is adware about windows 10? I work on windows 10 pro and it seems fine.
- Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 8y agoThe enterprise Linux distributions have lists with compatible hardware: https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/search/#/category/Laptop?certifications=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20Linux%207 https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/search/#/category/Laptop... https://www.suse.com/yessearch/ https://www.suse.com/yessearch/ https://certification.ubuntu.com/desktop/ https://certification.ubuntu.com/desktop/
- pushedx 8y agoHow do you run unsigned code on iOS. e.g. How can I build an XCode project and have it run on my iPhone?
- lucideer 8y agoThis article is about "Mac Apps", as the title states. I figure—unless posted elsewhere—that iOS hasn't changed and is still as restrictive as ever.
- earenndil 8y agoYou cannot run unsigned code on ios. However you can, for free, generate codesigning certs (that expire after 7 days).
- drb91 8y agoC’mon, apple will never allow you to run your own code without their say so.
- seltzered_ 8y agoWeren't most developers already generating a certificate with Apple for the second category? I was paying apple 99/yr when I was actively developing a non-app-store app largely just so I could get the app signed with my developer id. I tried reading into alternatives it seemed like a risky process. Ideally I'd like to pay a bit less if I'm not using the benefits of app-review, but the notarization process seems like a decent compromise. Even on windows my experience is that signed-non-windows-store apps can get flagged as malicious upon download if they're fairly niche/aren't used by many people, supposedly using an EV Cert helps with that. The user experience is actually worse from my experience (windows will show something red, then you have to click some non-obvious buttons to successfully run the app).
- comex 8y agoYeah, Gatekeeper has always had Apple as the sole root of trust. What’s changing is that each app will now have to be uploaded to Apple to be ‘notarized’, rather than signing being a purely offline process with a previously obtained certificate.
- josteink 8y ago> Even on windows my experience is that signed-non-windows-store apps can get flagged as malicious upon download But I’m Windows, any approved CA can issue a certificate, not just a Microsoft. Apple’s new regime is not only restricted to Apple being the only CA, but that Apple is the only one who can sign the apps. That’s immensely restrictive.
- cm2187 8y agoIt is still a writing on the wall. It makes no sense to tighten the security on signed apps if it is not to prevent unsigned app from running at one point. Which is clearly the direction of travel (and what Microsoft also did with WinRT and Windows 10 S). I don't have to wait until the final destination to not like the direction.
- comex 8y agoNotarized, not approved. It's not a manual process, doesn't involve App Store-like approval rules, and doesn't require sandboxing.
- thefounder 8y agoIt's pretty much the same(notarized/approved). The only difference is that Apple may not "reject" the app before you publish it, but once it decides to "ban" it you can no longer sign it as they suspend your developer account. I can think of uTorrent as a possible victim of this "notarization" process. Apple can quickly put peer to peer file sharing apps on the "malicious/banned" list just like they did on Appstore.
- amaccuish 8y agoThey can do that already, and have been able to for years (block software) with XProtect.
- woolvalley 8y agoBut in the future, it could, as apple boils the frog bit by bit.
- saagarjha 8y agoApple was very clear that the notarization process is not an App Store review. It could be, at some point, but as it stands currently there are so many apps that don't fit into the sandbox model that they'd just be shooting themselves in the foot.
- thefounder 8y agoWhat exactly is this if it's not a review process? If you violate Apple's policies you are banned. Of course your app won't stay in queue for review but once Apple found they don't like your app you can no longer sign it and I'm pretty sure they can make gatekeeper stop the existing installs as well.
- morpheuskafka 8y agoNo. Users can still disable Gatekeeper for complete control, just as they can disable Secure Boot on PCs, and just as they can disable Google Play Protect and enable "unknown sources" on Android.
- josteink 8y agoNitpick: Secure boot is about the firmware protecting the machine at boot time against unauthorized OSes or OS-modifications, establishing trust in the boot-media. App-signing is about protecting the user within an already booted OS, trusted or not. These are very different concepts.
- morpheuskafka 8y agoYeah, I agree. Just comparing them in that they both restricted users' perceived control and autonomy.
- josteink 8y agoSecure boot is 100% under the users control. You can load your own keys. Similarly in Windows you can control which CAs (or individual cettificates) you trust. They 100% respect the users freedom. Very much unlike Apple does with gatekeeper.