4 ms·

If Apple has to sign your app for it to run, then the Mac is no longer hackable.

gh123man 6y ago
How do you define hackable? Also it is trivial to run unsigned code on a mac. Signed binaries are a totally reasonable security feature for computers sold to people that will install anything. Having a reasonable (hard enough to find) workaround is totally acceptable in my book. I also believe you can trust a self signed codesigning certificate if you want a more permanent solution (citation needed)
- jrumbut 6y ago
  I think part of why the signed apps system feels onerous to me is that I can't really trust it for the things that matter most. Even if I'm assuming no exploits, everything working as intended, the permissions don't map well to what I care about. I don't really care which app has access to the camera, I care about what gets done with the recording (or even metadata/inferences from the images) or about it taking pictures at surprising times. Some fitness tracker needs a lot of data, which is fine as long as they aren't selling it to third parties. I would love the feature if it was something I could rely on, with audits of the client code, backend infrastructure, transparency in regards to data use, etc. As is installing software is still caveat emptor.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Capabilities are a technical problem with a technical solution. As in: an app can't use the microphone or access the Downloads folder without getting permission from the user, by design. What you're after is a sociopolitical problem, and would take a sociopolitical solution. It simply can't be implemented in software, and it can't be implemented correctly in all cases, period: even if the app designer is a perfect angel, and only does exactly what they've pledged to with your data, the company could be bought by Evil Corp, or get hacked.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    I totally agree with you, but it's worth noting that what you're describing is TCC (permissions for camera, accessing certain folders, etc), which is somewhat orthogonal to code signing. It's also much harder (practically impossible in many cases) to actually disable than Gatekeeper if you don't like it.
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  Hackable means I can run any software I want from any source without anyone's permission. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that starting with M1 macs, I now need apple's permission to distribute an app whether I use their store or not. Richard Stallman is seeming more and more prescient every year. Users should not be forced to give up control like this.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
But they don't. Go into the Terminal and type sudo spctl --master-disable (I have that command memorized!) and you can run all the unsigned code you want.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Apple only has to sign your app if you want to distribute it. You can run apps you build without getting them signed. You can build local apps, run Python/ Ruby/ Elixir code on your own computer without Apple ever knowing. Likewise on the iPhone actually, though I have to build the software on the Mac.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > distribute it Hardly a saving grace, no? Apple are still judge, jury, executioner, and taxman as to what the vast majority of their customers can run with their already expensive hardware.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > Apple are still judge, jury, executioner, and taxman Does that mean Tim Cook is Judge Dredd? The reality of distributing Mac Software is far more boring than you paint it.
GeekyBear 6y ago
So Windows 10 isn't hackable now that Windows SmartScreen hides the option to run unsigned software installers?
rubyist5eva 6y ago
Not everyone wants a "hackable" machine - but for those that do, it's rather trivial to bypass the mechanisms.

How do you define hackable? Also it is trivial to run unsigned code on a mac. Signed binaries are a totally reasonable security feature for computers sold to people that will install anything. Having a reasonable (hard enough to find) workaround is totally acceptable in my book. I also believe you can trust a self signed codesigning certificate if you want a more permanent solution (citation needed)

jrumbut 6y ago
I think part of why the signed apps system feels onerous to me is that I can't really trust it for the things that matter most. Even if I'm assuming no exploits, everything working as intended, the permissions don't map well to what I care about. I don't really care which app has access to the camera, I care about what gets done with the recording (or even metadata/inferences from the images) or about it taking pictures at surprising times. Some fitness tracker needs a lot of data, which is fine as long as they aren't selling it to third parties. I would love the feature if it was something I could rely on, with audits of the client code, backend infrastructure, transparency in regards to data use, etc. As is installing software is still caveat emptor.
- samatman 6y ago
  Capabilities are a technical problem with a technical solution. As in: an app can't use the microphone or access the Downloads folder without getting permission from the user, by design. What you're after is a sociopolitical problem, and would take a sociopolitical solution. It simply can't be implemented in software, and it can't be implemented correctly in all cases, period: even if the app designer is a perfect angel, and only does exactly what they've pledged to with your data, the company could be bought by Evil Corp, or get hacked.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I totally agree with you, but it's worth noting that what you're describing is TCC (permissions for camera, accessing certain folders, etc), which is somewhat orthogonal to code signing. It's also much harder (practically impossible in many cases) to actually disable than Gatekeeper if you don't like it.
sthnblllII 6y ago
Hackable means I can run any software I want from any source without anyone's permission. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that starting with M1 macs, I now need apple's permission to distribute an app whether I use their store or not. Richard Stallman is seeming more and more prescient every year. Users should not be forced to give up control like this.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

But they don't. Go into the Terminal and type sudo spctl --master-disable (I have that command memorized!) and you can run all the unsigned code you want.

ogre_codes 6y ago

Apple only has to sign your app if you want to distribute it. You can run apps you build without getting them signed. You can build local apps, run Python/ Ruby/ Elixir code on your own computer without Apple ever knowing. Likewise on the iPhone actually, though I have to build the software on the Mac.

mhh__ 6y ago
> distribute it Hardly a saving grace, no? Apple are still judge, jury, executioner, and taxman as to what the vast majority of their customers can run with their already expensive hardware.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Apple are still judge, jury, executioner, and taxman Does that mean Tim Cook is Judge Dredd? The reality of distributing Mac Software is far more boring than you paint it.

GeekyBear 6y ago

So Windows 10 isn't hackable now that Windows SmartScreen hides the option to run unsigned software installers?

rubyist5eva 6y ago

Not everyone wants a "hackable" machine - but for those that do, it's rather trivial to bypass the mechanisms.