4 ms·

Aren't the app review requirements only necessary to submit apps to the App Store? Pretty certain you can still distribute software through your own channels wi

by 2cb 6y ago

Aren't the app review requirements only necessary to submit apps to the App Store? Pretty certain you can still distribute software through your own channels without Apple reviewing it, you just need to apply as developer with Apple so the app is signed, then Gatekeeper doesn't get in the way. Also I notice that Homebrew packages run just fine without needing to be signed by Apple, not sure how but that's a possibility if you really don't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

mchristen 6y ago
Signing doesn't keep Gatekeeper away, you need to also get your app notarized, which involves uploading the app to Apple's servers.
- 2cb 6y ago
  Ah fair enough, didn't know they were so strict with software distributed outside the App Store. I say the best thing to do is distribute your software using Homebrew then. As well as it being super convenient since it's effectively the same as apt or any other package manager common to other Unix systems, it bypasses Gatekeeper. Got curious how and it's amazingly simple, it literally just provides an environment variable that deletes that "quarantine" xattr metadata.[1] Tell your users Homebrew is the supported installation method and you can skip right over Gatekeeper. [1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/issues/85164 https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/issues/85164
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Notarizing is not strict by any definition of the term, unless you consider "scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues" to be strict? It's an automated system. Also, if you tell me your app is only installable via Home-brew, I'm not installing it. Comparing Homebrew to Apt, is like comparing a playdough and crayon sandwich, with an actual sandwich. Sure, they both look kind of similar at a distance, and technically you can eat both of them, but one is really not well thought out, and if you say you don't like how it tastes, the child who made it will get upset with you.
    - 2cb 6y ago
      What is your specific beef with Homebrew? You insult it but don't provide any reason it's so much more inferior compared to apt. There are some ways Homebrew is actually more secure than apt. For example in order to do anything with apt you must give it superuser rights. The same is not true of Homebrew, which installs binaries in userspace and explicitly tells you to never use sudo. A Homebrew installer is a simple Ruby script you can easily audit for yourself. The packages are SHA256 signed to ensure code integrity. You can point it at a specific repo you trust and tell it to get a package from there. All downloads are done through a TLS connection, which is not the case for apt. And of course the whole thing is open source. I fail to see where the hate is coming from. > Notarizing is not strict by any definition of the term, unless you consider "scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues" to be strict? I mean, having to register as a developer, get a certificate to sign your apps, and still have to send off your software to Apple each time you update it before you can distribute it on your own website is pretty "strict" compared to every other OS. It doesn't seem to do much to prevent malware in the wild either.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        I don't have a stake in this fight, but some of those don't really seem like advantages over apt - > The packages are SHA256 signed to ensure code integrity. And apt uses GPG signatures. > You can point it at a specific repo you trust and tell it to get a package from there. Exactly like apt? > All downloads are done through a TLS connection, which is not the case for apt. Since apt enforces GPG signatures by default, this could be a privacy issue but shouldn't be a security issue. Unless you meant only for the sudo/non-sudo to be your point on being better than apt and the rest was just defending homebrew?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Adding TLS into the picture introduces many extra failure modes. Examples: clock out of sync, wrong version of SSL, certificate signing problem. All of these things would cause your install to become non-upgradeable by a non-expert.

by 2cb 6y ago

mchristen 6y ago

Signing doesn't keep Gatekeeper away, you need to also get your app notarized, which involves uploading the app to Apple's servers.

2cb 6y ago
Ah fair enough, didn't know they were so strict with software distributed outside the App Store. I say the best thing to do is distribute your software using Homebrew then. As well as it being super convenient since it's effectively the same as apt or any other package manager common to other Unix systems, it bypasses Gatekeeper. Got curious how and it's amazingly simple, it literally just provides an environment variable that deletes that "quarantine" xattr metadata.[1] Tell your users Homebrew is the supported installation method and you can skip right over Gatekeeper. [1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/issues/85164 https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/issues/85164
- stephenr 6y ago
  Notarizing is not strict by any definition of the term, unless you consider "scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues" to be strict? It's an automated system. Also, if you tell me your app is only installable via Home-brew, I'm not installing it. Comparing Homebrew to Apt, is like comparing a playdough and crayon sandwich, with an actual sandwich. Sure, they both look kind of similar at a distance, and technically you can eat both of them, but one is really not well thought out, and if you say you don't like how it tastes, the child who made it will get upset with you.
  - 2cb 6y ago
    What is your specific beef with Homebrew? You insult it but don't provide any reason it's so much more inferior compared to apt. There are some ways Homebrew is actually more secure than apt. For example in order to do anything with apt you must give it superuser rights. The same is not true of Homebrew, which installs binaries in userspace and explicitly tells you to never use sudo. A Homebrew installer is a simple Ruby script you can easily audit for yourself. The packages are SHA256 signed to ensure code integrity. You can point it at a specific repo you trust and tell it to get a package from there. All downloads are done through a TLS connection, which is not the case for apt. And of course the whole thing is open source. I fail to see where the hate is coming from. > Notarizing is not strict by any definition of the term, unless you consider "scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues" to be strict? I mean, having to register as a developer, get a certificate to sign your apps, and still have to send off your software to Apple each time you update it before you can distribute it on your own website is pretty "strict" compared to every other OS. It doesn't seem to do much to prevent malware in the wild either.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      I don't have a stake in this fight, but some of those don't really seem like advantages over apt - > The packages are SHA256 signed to ensure code integrity. And apt uses GPG signatures. > You can point it at a specific repo you trust and tell it to get a package from there. Exactly like apt? > All downloads are done through a TLS connection, which is not the case for apt. Since apt enforces GPG signatures by default, this could be a privacy issue but shouldn't be a security issue. Unless you meant only for the sudo/non-sudo to be your point on being better than apt and the rest was just defending homebrew?
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Adding TLS into the picture introduces many extra failure modes. Examples: clock out of sync, wrong version of SSL, certificate signing problem. All of these things would cause your install to become non-upgradeable by a non-expert.