4 ms·

It's not a problem, yet. But I would argue that it's quite clear from Apple's actions the last ~5 years that they really want to make Mac OS behave as iOS as mu

It's not a problem, yet. But I would argue that it's quite clear from Apple's actions the last ~5 years that they really want to make Mac OS behave as iOS as much as possible, including making it impossible for regular users to run arbitrary non app store software. I know it sounds crazy, but they have for years now been taking steps - like this - which nobody seems to find a rational cause for, but which step by step seem to remove obstacles of technically, legal, or user expectations in line with making OS X an app store only platform, and if possible completely replace OS X with iOS.

musicale 7y ago
The obvious "rational" security benefits to users are: 1) Gatekeeper makes it harder to run malware; unsigned executables don't run by default, and signed malware can have its developer keys revoked by Apple. 2) SIP makes it harder for malware to modify system files. The obvious "rational" business benefit to Apple is that: 3) Gatekeeper makes it harder to sell Mac apps without Apple getting a 30% cut
plorkyeran 7y ago
You can't think of a single rational cause for requiring code signing by default other than them wanting to lock down the system? It's a huge security gain for normal users, and helps application developers by encouraging normal users to trust third-party applications rather than being terrified they'll get malware if they install any non-apple software. It's certainly possible that Apple has intentions other than to make the platform better and a discussion can be had on if the tradeoffs are worth it, but it's ridiculous to claim that there are zero benefits to anyone but Apple.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I can't think of a single (non-malicious) rational cause for requiring code signing by default and making the requirement impossible for the user to disable. We're talking about what Apple could be planning that would violate the GPLv3. As long as the signing can be disabled by the user, there shouldn't be a GPLv3 violation.
  - Someone 7y ago
    If there were a simple checkbox in the OS to disable SIP, I would expect zillions of ‘nice’ add-ons would ship with instructions on how to disable it. I also expect zillions of helpful nieces/nephews would flip that checkbox for their uncles/aunts, and, accidentally or on purpose, leave it that way. Even if that isn’t true, making it harder for malware to flip that flag already is a rational reason to implement it this way.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      I have zero issues with how SIP is currently implemented. It's just hard enough to turn off to protect people, without being overly annoying. I do worry very much about SIP becoming impossible to disable some day. Don't ban knives because people might cut themselves.

musicale 7y ago

The obvious "rational" security benefits to users are: 1) Gatekeeper makes it harder to run malware; unsigned executables don't run by default, and signed malware can have its developer keys revoked by Apple. 2) SIP makes it harder for malware to modify system files. The obvious "rational" business benefit to Apple is that: 3) Gatekeeper makes it harder to sell Mac apps without Apple getting a 30% cut

plorkyeran 7y ago

You can't think of a single rational cause for requiring code signing by default other than them wanting to lock down the system? It's a huge security gain for normal users, and helps application developers by encouraging normal users to trust third-party applications rather than being terrified they'll get malware if they install any non-apple software. It's certainly possible that Apple has intentions other than to make the platform better and a discussion can be had on if the tradeoffs are worth it, but it's ridiculous to claim that there are zero benefits to anyone but Apple.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I can't think of a single (non-malicious) rational cause for requiring code signing by default and making the requirement impossible for the user to disable. We're talking about what Apple could be planning that would violate the GPLv3. As long as the signing can be disabled by the user, there shouldn't be a GPLv3 violation.
- Someone 7y ago
  If there were a simple checkbox in the OS to disable SIP, I would expect zillions of ‘nice’ add-ons would ship with instructions on how to disable it. I also expect zillions of helpful nieces/nephews would flip that checkbox for their uncles/aunts, and, accidentally or on purpose, leave it that way. Even if that isn’t true, making it harder for malware to flip that flag already is a rational reason to implement it this way.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I have zero issues with how SIP is currently implemented. It's just hard enough to turn off to protect people, without being overly annoying. I do worry very much about SIP becoming impossible to disable some day. Don't ban knives because people might cut themselves.