17 ms·

This feature is at about the right spot for me. It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that nei

This feature is at about the right spot for me. It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.

tracker1 6y ago
My answer to that was chromebooks.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Chromebooks are in a pretty good spot of balancing security with hackability. Apple should take a couple leaves out of their book…
- oneplane 6y ago
  To be honest, I hoped microsoft and their windows rt experiment would be the 'alternative' to that so you have three choices for the end-user (get chromeOS, iPadOS or Window RT). To get 'stuff done' a user really has no business having access to the system or circumventing controls. Currently most desktop management structures try to do it backwards by taking an OS, i.e. macOS or Windows, and then trying to glue restrictions on top of it which always leaves holes or undesired side-effects. The best 'middle of the road' so far seems to be active monitoring with Apple's or Microsoft's native management tools or with stuff like OSQuery; it also tends to be less intrusive for people that are convinced they are 'better than average' (nobody is) and don't need to have an MDM babysitting them. But even then, there will always be people thinking their personal preference definitely means the big bad corp did it wrong or their personal need is more important than trying to do something about the constant barrage or crap any machine faces during its lifetime. For the home user, all bets are off.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    What about Windows "S Mode"? That's sort of the latest iteration on the Windows RT experiment, but you can turn it on/off on any Windows PC now. I know the complaints remain that not enough apps are in the Microsoft Store, especially compared to iPadOS and Chrome OS if you include Android apps, but it is comparable to Chrome OS without Android support and still seems like an "alright, not terrible" third choice.
- npunt 6y ago
  Chromebooks are definitely one way to solve it. The Apple ecosystem is also pretty fantastic for family though - iMessage, Photos, Safari etc. Personally I'd prefer family to be on iOS than MacOS, there's even less rope to hang yourself with there.
yaur 6y ago
I believe this is bubbling up because apple recently revoked Epic's certificate (sorry if that isn't quite the right term) and these are now the steps required to run Fortnight on Mac.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Technically Apple has (or will) terminate Epic's developer program access, which means that they will no longer be able to sign new builds. They have not revoked the certificate at this time, so those binaries should still continue to run until the certificates expire.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bzb4 6y ago
  I think people are mostly bitching about iOS, since it will be impossible to run the game on iPhones and iPads anymore at all.
  - wwright 6y ago
    AFAIK this is false, though I could be wrong. I believe cancelling the account is separate from revoking the apps. I think Apple has only deleted installed apps off of user’s phones in rare, exceptional cases, such as actively malicious apps. Can anyone confirm if I am recalling this correctly?
    - bzb4 6y ago
      Apple probably won’t delete the app from user phones, but it won’t be available to new users anymore (those who have never downloaded the app using their Apple account) and Epic will be unable to submit new updates to the App Store, which in practice kills the app
koyote 6y ago
As someone whose elderly parents run Windows and have never run 'any executable that any website tells them to download', and I myself have not seen a website that gives me a random executable in over a decade: Out of curiosity, how often do your parents encounter the dialog in the article?
- cuddlybacon 6y ago
  I don't know how often they see it. But in the Windows days every time I'd visit, they'd say there computer was "fucked" and had been put away until I could look at it.
- LeanderK 6y ago
  I really don't know how they end up with this, but my grandparents run windows and regularly have some kind of malicious advertisement installed. It's a not easy to keep their computers clean.
  - tech234a 6y ago
    Perhaps installing an adblocker would help?
- user5994461 6y ago
  Try using safari on a MacBook. Last time I spent 10 minutes on my wife's laptop, every website was filled with garbage ads saying your Mac is infected with a virus you must download an anti virus quick (#malware). The shadier websites (streaming) sent a dmg executable as soon as they were opened. It's shocking, it's worse than Windows (sad fact: Mac has more malware/adware than Windows since the last 3 years). Of course you can't see that if you're not on Mac or if you have an adblocker. Ads detect the browser and specifically target Safari. Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers, it's wide open to targeting.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    > Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers Safari has ad-blockers. It also has extensions. Just google it.
kjksf 6y ago
Apple has been making things more and more restrictive over a decade now. New versions of mac os introducing new restrictions. Doesn't take a genius to see that their end goal is to make mac os as restrictive as ios. When that happens, will it still be the right spot for you?
- brundolf 6y ago
  As long as there's software there will be devs who need machines with which they can build it. Those machines will always need mechanisms for circumventing safety constraints, almost by definition. I guess it's possible Apple could decide, one day, "macOS isn't for developers anymore, it's just like iOS, devs will just have to go elsewhere". But that seems like it would be a profoundly stupid thing to do. I do wish they would just bundle up all of the safety-guards under a single toggle - put it in the recovery UI for maximum obscurity - to make this stuff as convenient for developers as possible. But I take the fact that they don't to be a shortcoming of product development, not malice.
  - the8472 6y ago
    Look at iOS, you need to pay for a developer account and the signed applications can't be distributed (otherwise they'll revoke your account) and have short-lived certs.
    - brundolf 6y ago
      You're not listening: you don't make software on iOS.
      - the8472 6y ago
        Those people already pay for that account and thus could sign whatever they need to work. For them it wouldn't change a thing. It's just everyone else.
      - jentist_retol 6y ago
        I have a feeling that this is going to change in the next year or two.
badsectoracula 6y ago
Well, yes, until you get to the point where (as the article shows) you cannot run unsigned applications on Apple Silicon. How much more slippery does this slope needs to get?
- xenadu02 6y ago
  It is important to understand what this requirement is and isn't. The requirement on Apple Silicon is only that the binary be codesigned. That ensures the binary is unmodified when it is encountered again later. You do not need an Apple-approved signing key for this. Ad-hoc signing works just fine. Apple's new linker automatically adds an ad-hoc signature to ensure people building outside Xcode don't experience any disruptions as part of this new requirement. This requirement does not change GateKeeper or Notarization.
  - wila 6y ago
    The certificate is only checked on initial load. If the application gets changed afterwards then it will still load. It is not an integrity check. More details here: https://eclecticlight.co/2019/07/09/understanding-signature-checks-on-notarized-apps-in-mojave-10-14-5-1/ https://eclecticlight.co/2019/07/09/understanding-signature-...
    - ooobit2 6y ago
      This cascade of comments is missing the point. It's like someone is pointing out the darker shade of clouds at the horizon and saying, "I think a storm is coming," and everyone here is just going, "Well, it could also be nightfall. I mean, the night has to roll on in at some point too." Yes, it's just an initial check. But is it necessary? What exactly is the use case basis for Apple transmitting and logging data on every application you run on an operating system you have a consumer guarantee of zero-tampering post-sale. So, let's work this out: How easy is it to not upgrade macOS, retain consistent performance as usual, and not lose support if the userbase remains unsatisfied with Apple's change to an exchanged good? By my understanding, as with Windows 10, Apple will eventually require you to upgrade. If you're upgrading to a system that maintains the same performance and does not introduce express limitations to the product post-sale, that's great! Go for it, live merry. However, in this case, the userbase has zero clarification on both co-owned data transmission and a remote check that appears to trigger a constraint on workflow. There's no use case basis that makes sense for doing this, because Apple has established guarantees for decades prior to this new process that claim macOS is not susceptible to malware. So, it begs the question: Was Apple violating consumer protections by making false guarantees, or is Apple violating consumer protections by limiting the function and utility of the product post-sale? That's what people are asking right now. We don't care about the nuance of the check. We care about the basic characteristics of, and more importantly the legitimacy of any use case for this check, given promises made to consumers at a prior time of purchase.
_qulr 6y ago
> This feature is at about the right spot for me. The issue is not whether expert users can run unsigned software, the issue is whether unsigned software will even be written and distributed by developers. Perhaps some free software, but it's not a viable way to distribute paid software.
gramakri 6y ago
Don't they need admin privileges to install? Why give them admin ?
- aequitas 6y ago
  You don’t need admin to simply run software on macOS. And even then installed is (or should be) nothing more than extracting the app to a directory and running it. Installers are and anti pattern in macOS afaic.
  - GnarfGnarf 6y ago
    What if the app is required to "do stuff" during the installation? Ex: informing a related app of its availability, writing an installation date for trial period expiration, etc. You need to do that with a script or auxiliary program, which is invoked at installation.
    - aequitas 6y ago
      It would be much better if the application would take care of this on the first run (or a subsequent run if it is copied from a backup or other device). Restricting these things to only the installation phase makes App's less portable. Because you always need the installation file as well. On macOS pplications are bundled directories. So they are a single 'file' containing everything needed to get the App running (binaries, metadata, assets, etc). Using an installer on them is just an cumbersome antipattern adding useless steps to a process that could be a simple drag and drop.
      - GnarfGnarf 6y ago
        This is not possible in a "chicken and egg" situation: My app is a plugin for a main app. The main app can't find me to launch me until I "seed" its directory with a pointer to me. To make my app visible to the main app, I place a "cookie" in the main app's directory (not my design), which is done by the installer script. Without this, the main app will never find my app. And the user can't launch me until he sees me in the list of available plugins. Vicious circle.
ineedasername 6y ago
From the article, it seems like things have gradually become more & more restrictive though. My interpretation is that Apple is gradually shifting macOS to the same application distribution model as iOS: Complete walled garden, attempts to bypass are against ToS, actively closed off with every update, and warranty-breaking. However my impression is also that it's mostly non Mac users who are concerned with this, so it seems unlikely that Apple will have much incentive to reverse course unless they screw up and go a few steps too far too soon and create a bigger outcry. Even that would probably just delay the process.
- mlindner 6y ago
  > From the article, it seems like things have gradually become more & more restrictive though. My interpretation is that Apple is gradually shifting macOS to the same application distribution model as iOS: Complete walled garden, attempts to bypass are against ToS, actively closed off with every update, and warranty-breaking. Nothing has really changed in this article though. You can still run software just as before.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    It's being made more difficult. Increasingly technically more technical savvy is required. At the same time that apple increasingly pushed their app store on macOS. The fact that at this point in time savvy users can still run arbitrary software doesn't negate a general trends that might be moving away from that direction.
gtm1260 6y ago
I kind of agree. I think the right click option is actually kind of genius since it gives people who somewhat know what they're doing a very easy to way to open unsigned software, while protecting people who don't know what's going on on their computers.
throwawayffffas 6y ago
I see this argument repeated whenever there is a conversation about issues like this. But I almost never see anyone pointing out this is the equivalent of think of the children applied to software distribution. While indeed this kind of control reduces the chance less informed users run random code downloaded from sketchy sites. I think it does little to actually curb malware, since all you have to do to pass the bar is pay 100 dollars to apple. I believe this is Apples attempt to fully control the software distribution business for macs the way they do for iphones. Eventually mandating that all software comes through their store, uses their payment provider, etc.

tracker1 6y ago

My answer to that was chromebooks.

saagarjha 6y ago
Chromebooks are in a pretty good spot of balancing security with hackability. Apple should take a couple leaves out of their book…
oneplane 6y ago
To be honest, I hoped microsoft and their windows rt experiment would be the 'alternative' to that so you have three choices for the end-user (get chromeOS, iPadOS or Window RT). To get 'stuff done' a user really has no business having access to the system or circumventing controls. Currently most desktop management structures try to do it backwards by taking an OS, i.e. macOS or Windows, and then trying to glue restrictions on top of it which always leaves holes or undesired side-effects. The best 'middle of the road' so far seems to be active monitoring with Apple's or Microsoft's native management tools or with stuff like OSQuery; it also tends to be less intrusive for people that are convinced they are 'better than average' (nobody is) and don't need to have an MDM babysitting them. But even then, there will always be people thinking their personal preference definitely means the big bad corp did it wrong or their personal need is more important than trying to do something about the constant barrage or crap any machine faces during its lifetime. For the home user, all bets are off.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  What about Windows "S Mode"? That's sort of the latest iteration on the Windows RT experiment, but you can turn it on/off on any Windows PC now. I know the complaints remain that not enough apps are in the Microsoft Store, especially compared to iPadOS and Chrome OS if you include Android apps, but it is comparable to Chrome OS without Android support and still seems like an "alright, not terrible" third choice.
npunt 6y ago
Chromebooks are definitely one way to solve it. The Apple ecosystem is also pretty fantastic for family though - iMessage, Photos, Safari etc. Personally I'd prefer family to be on iOS than MacOS, there's even less rope to hang yourself with there.

yaur 6y ago

I believe this is bubbling up because apple recently revoked Epic's certificate (sorry if that isn't quite the right term) and these are now the steps required to run Fortnight on Mac.

saagarjha 6y ago
Technically Apple has (or will) terminate Epic's developer program access, which means that they will no longer be able to sign new builds. They have not revoked the certificate at this time, so those binaries should still continue to run until the certificates expire.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bzb4 6y ago
I think people are mostly bitching about iOS, since it will be impossible to run the game on iPhones and iPads anymore at all.
- wwright 6y ago
  AFAIK this is false, though I could be wrong. I believe cancelling the account is separate from revoking the apps. I think Apple has only deleted installed apps off of user’s phones in rare, exceptional cases, such as actively malicious apps. Can anyone confirm if I am recalling this correctly?
  - bzb4 6y ago
    Apple probably won’t delete the app from user phones, but it won’t be available to new users anymore (those who have never downloaded the app using their Apple account) and Epic will be unable to submit new updates to the App Store, which in practice kills the app

koyote 6y ago

As someone whose elderly parents run Windows and have never run 'any executable that any website tells them to download', and I myself have not seen a website that gives me a random executable in over a decade: Out of curiosity, how often do your parents encounter the dialog in the article?

cuddlybacon 6y ago
I don't know how often they see it. But in the Windows days every time I'd visit, they'd say there computer was "fucked" and had been put away until I could look at it.
LeanderK 6y ago
I really don't know how they end up with this, but my grandparents run windows and regularly have some kind of malicious advertisement installed. It's a not easy to keep their computers clean.
- tech234a 6y ago
  Perhaps installing an adblocker would help?
user5994461 6y ago
Try using safari on a MacBook. Last time I spent 10 minutes on my wife's laptop, every website was filled with garbage ads saying your Mac is infected with a virus you must download an anti virus quick (#malware). The shadier websites (streaming) sent a dmg executable as soon as they were opened. It's shocking, it's worse than Windows (sad fact: Mac has more malware/adware than Windows since the last 3 years). Of course you can't see that if you're not on Mac or if you have an adblocker. Ads detect the browser and specifically target Safari. Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers, it's wide open to targeting.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  > Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers Safari has ad-blockers. It also has extensions. Just google it.

kjksf 6y ago

Apple has been making things more and more restrictive over a decade now. New versions of mac os introducing new restrictions. Doesn't take a genius to see that their end goal is to make mac os as restrictive as ios. When that happens, will it still be the right spot for you?

brundolf 6y ago
As long as there's software there will be devs who need machines with which they can build it. Those machines will always need mechanisms for circumventing safety constraints, almost by definition. I guess it's possible Apple could decide, one day, "macOS isn't for developers anymore, it's just like iOS, devs will just have to go elsewhere". But that seems like it would be a profoundly stupid thing to do. I do wish they would just bundle up all of the safety-guards under a single toggle - put it in the recovery UI for maximum obscurity - to make this stuff as convenient for developers as possible. But I take the fact that they don't to be a shortcoming of product development, not malice.
- the8472 6y ago
  Look at iOS, you need to pay for a developer account and the signed applications can't be distributed (otherwise they'll revoke your account) and have short-lived certs.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    You're not listening: you don't make software on iOS.
    - the8472 6y ago
      Those people already pay for that account and thus could sign whatever they need to work. For them it wouldn't change a thing. It's just everyone else.
    - jentist_retol 6y ago
      I have a feeling that this is going to change in the next year or two.

badsectoracula 6y ago

Well, yes, until you get to the point where (as the article shows) you cannot run unsigned applications on Apple Silicon. How much more slippery does this slope needs to get?

xenadu02 6y ago
It is important to understand what this requirement is and isn't. The requirement on Apple Silicon is only that the binary be codesigned. That ensures the binary is unmodified when it is encountered again later. You do not need an Apple-approved signing key for this. Ad-hoc signing works just fine. Apple's new linker automatically adds an ad-hoc signature to ensure people building outside Xcode don't experience any disruptions as part of this new requirement. This requirement does not change GateKeeper or Notarization.
- wila 6y ago
  The certificate is only checked on initial load. If the application gets changed afterwards then it will still load. It is not an integrity check. More details here: https://eclecticlight.co/2019/07/09/understanding-signature-checks-on-notarized-apps-in-mojave-10-14-5-1/ https://eclecticlight.co/2019/07/09/understanding-signature-...
  - ooobit2 6y ago
    This cascade of comments is missing the point. It's like someone is pointing out the darker shade of clouds at the horizon and saying, "I think a storm is coming," and everyone here is just going, "Well, it could also be nightfall. I mean, the night has to roll on in at some point too." Yes, it's just an initial check. But is it necessary? What exactly is the use case basis for Apple transmitting and logging data on every application you run on an operating system you have a consumer guarantee of zero-tampering post-sale. So, let's work this out: How easy is it to not upgrade macOS, retain consistent performance as usual, and not lose support if the userbase remains unsatisfied with Apple's change to an exchanged good? By my understanding, as with Windows 10, Apple will eventually require you to upgrade. If you're upgrading to a system that maintains the same performance and does not introduce express limitations to the product post-sale, that's great! Go for it, live merry. However, in this case, the userbase has zero clarification on both co-owned data transmission and a remote check that appears to trigger a constraint on workflow. There's no use case basis that makes sense for doing this, because Apple has established guarantees for decades prior to this new process that claim macOS is not susceptible to malware. So, it begs the question: Was Apple violating consumer protections by making false guarantees, or is Apple violating consumer protections by limiting the function and utility of the product post-sale? That's what people are asking right now. We don't care about the nuance of the check. We care about the basic characteristics of, and more importantly the legitimacy of any use case for this check, given promises made to consumers at a prior time of purchase.

_qulr 6y ago

> This feature is at about the right spot for me. The issue is not whether expert users can run unsigned software, the issue is whether unsigned software will even be written and distributed by developers. Perhaps some free software, but it's not a viable way to distribute paid software.

gramakri 6y ago

Don't they need admin privileges to install? Why give them admin ?

aequitas 6y ago
You don’t need admin to simply run software on macOS. And even then installed is (or should be) nothing more than extracting the app to a directory and running it. Installers are and anti pattern in macOS afaic.
- GnarfGnarf 6y ago
  What if the app is required to "do stuff" during the installation? Ex: informing a related app of its availability, writing an installation date for trial period expiration, etc. You need to do that with a script or auxiliary program, which is invoked at installation.
  - aequitas 6y ago
    It would be much better if the application would take care of this on the first run (or a subsequent run if it is copied from a backup or other device). Restricting these things to only the installation phase makes App's less portable. Because you always need the installation file as well. On macOS pplications are bundled directories. So they are a single 'file' containing everything needed to get the App running (binaries, metadata, assets, etc). Using an installer on them is just an cumbersome antipattern adding useless steps to a process that could be a simple drag and drop.
    - GnarfGnarf 6y ago
      This is not possible in a "chicken and egg" situation: My app is a plugin for a main app. The main app can't find me to launch me until I "seed" its directory with a pointer to me. To make my app visible to the main app, I place a "cookie" in the main app's directory (not my design), which is done by the installer script. Without this, the main app will never find my app. And the user can't launch me until he sees me in the list of available plugins. Vicious circle.

ineedasername 6y ago

From the article, it seems like things have gradually become more & more restrictive though. My interpretation is that Apple is gradually shifting macOS to the same application distribution model as iOS: Complete walled garden, attempts to bypass are against ToS, actively closed off with every update, and warranty-breaking. However my impression is also that it's mostly non Mac users who are concerned with this, so it seems unlikely that Apple will have much incentive to reverse course unless they screw up and go a few steps too far too soon and create a bigger outcry. Even that would probably just delay the process.

mlindner 6y ago
> From the article, it seems like things have gradually become more & more restrictive though. My interpretation is that Apple is gradually shifting macOS to the same application distribution model as iOS: Complete walled garden, attempts to bypass are against ToS, actively closed off with every update, and warranty-breaking. Nothing has really changed in this article though. You can still run software just as before.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  It's being made more difficult. Increasingly technically more technical savvy is required. At the same time that apple increasingly pushed their app store on macOS. The fact that at this point in time savvy users can still run arbitrary software doesn't negate a general trends that might be moving away from that direction.

gtm1260 6y ago

I kind of agree. I think the right click option is actually kind of genius since it gives people who somewhat know what they're doing a very easy to way to open unsigned software, while protecting people who don't know what's going on on their computers.

throwawayffffas 6y ago

I see this argument repeated whenever there is a conversation about issues like this. But I almost never see anyone pointing out this is the equivalent of think of the children applied to software distribution. While indeed this kind of control reduces the chance less informed users run random code downloaded from sketchy sites. I think it does little to actually curb malware, since all you have to do to pass the bar is pay 100 dollars to apple. I believe this is Apples attempt to fully control the software distribution business for macs the way they do for iphones. Eventually mandating that all software comes through their store, uses their payment provider, etc.