5 ms·

Scary looking submission, but from what I've read the right-click-menu-open trick to bypass Gatekeeper still works.

sjwright 7y ago
I can't speak to that particular method as I haven't personally played with Catalina, but you are correct. $ sudo spctl --master-disable definitely works.
- duiker101 7y ago
  Problem is, the average user will never ever do that or even think it's possible.
  - matthewmacleod 7y ago
    This is exactly the opposite of a problem.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    How is that a problem?
  - maxaf 7y ago
    Apple’s position is that the average user isn’t supposed to be installing apps from outside the App Store anyway. Who is the average user, you ask? No one who posts to or reads HN, that’s for sure. Your parents, grandparents, and clueless neighbors are all average users. They will benefit from the decrease in malware and increase in assurance that the app won’t do something fishy. Everyone else will bypass protections and continue as before.
    - duiker101 7y ago
      But from the perspective of a dev it means you will need to either go through the App Store (and pay / let Apple have any list word on your app) or have your users drastically reduced because they can't even open the app.
      - maxaf 7y ago
        It's an acceptable price to pay for security. This price is dictated not by Apple, but by all the malicious actors who have abused the frictionless path from dev to user in order to distribute virii, malware, adware, spyware, and all the other crap that non-technical uses have been contending with for decades.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      Apples position might also be the knowledge about creating money from signatures that can increase the value of their company from their possession. https://www.zdnet.com/article/illicit-certificates-worth-more-than-guns-on-the-dark-web/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/illicit-certificates-worth-mor... I think the security effect will be marginal.
      - maxaf 7y ago
        Are you saying that Apple is the market maker for some shady marketplace of code signing certs?
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        This is quite a reach: I'm sure the amount of money Apple could possibly make with something like this is marginal.
    - notJim 7y ago
      > Apple’s position is that the average user isn’t supposed to be installing apps from outside the App Store anyway. Is this Apple's position, or is their position that apps you install on your system should be vetted in some way (either via the App Store, or via the notarization process)? It seems to be the latter based on reading the link, but I might be wrong.
  - Octoth0rpe 7y ago
    I'm not sure I'd call that a "problem". This is exactly what I'd like tbh: parents/less technically inclined siblings will gain some degree of security (no more mac cleaner), and has virtually zero impact on me.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    That's perfect. Best of both worlds.
  - jmull 7y ago
    That's not the problem, that's the design! There are various ways around this if you know what you're doing.
- mlevental 7y ago
  is this the thing that permanently turns off having to go to privacy settings?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    This is the setting that System Preferences doesn't offer and turns off everything.
galad87 7y ago
Right, signed apps will requires to be notarized. Unsigned apps will run like before with either right-click open or by clicking open in System Preferences -> Security.

I can't speak to that particular method as I haven't personally played with Catalina, but you are correct. $ sudo spctl --master-disable definitely works.

duiker101 7y ago
Problem is, the average user will never ever do that or even think it's possible.
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  This is exactly the opposite of a problem.
- rimliu 7y ago
  How is that a problem?
- maxaf 7y ago
  Apple’s position is that the average user isn’t supposed to be installing apps from outside the App Store anyway. Who is the average user, you ask? No one who posts to or reads HN, that’s for sure. Your parents, grandparents, and clueless neighbors are all average users. They will benefit from the decrease in malware and increase in assurance that the app won’t do something fishy. Everyone else will bypass protections and continue as before.
  - duiker101 7y ago
    But from the perspective of a dev it means you will need to either go through the App Store (and pay / let Apple have any list word on your app) or have your users drastically reduced because they can't even open the app.
    - maxaf 7y ago
      It's an acceptable price to pay for security. This price is dictated not by Apple, but by all the malicious actors who have abused the frictionless path from dev to user in order to distribute virii, malware, adware, spyware, and all the other crap that non-technical uses have been contending with for decades.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Apples position might also be the knowledge about creating money from signatures that can increase the value of their company from their possession. https://www.zdnet.com/article/illicit-certificates-worth-more-than-guns-on-the-dark-web/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/illicit-certificates-worth-mor... I think the security effect will be marginal.
    - maxaf 7y ago
      Are you saying that Apple is the market maker for some shady marketplace of code signing certs?
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      This is quite a reach: I'm sure the amount of money Apple could possibly make with something like this is marginal.
  - notJim 7y ago
    > Apple’s position is that the average user isn’t supposed to be installing apps from outside the App Store anyway. Is this Apple's position, or is their position that apps you install on your system should be vetted in some way (either via the App Store, or via the notarization process)? It seems to be the latter based on reading the link, but I might be wrong.
- Octoth0rpe 7y ago
  I'm not sure I'd call that a "problem". This is exactly what I'd like tbh: parents/less technically inclined siblings will gain some degree of security (no more mac cleaner), and has virtually zero impact on me.
- sjwright 7y ago
  That's perfect. Best of both worlds.
- jmull 7y ago
  That's not the problem, that's the design! There are various ways around this if you know what you're doing.
mlevental 7y ago
is this the thing that permanently turns off having to go to privacy settings?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  This is the setting that System Preferences doesn't offer and turns off everything.

galad87 7y ago

Right, signed apps will requires to be notarized. Unsigned apps will run like before with either right-click open or by clicking open in System Preferences -> Security.