4 ms·

And, not mentioned in the article... you have to have an Apple Developer ID which costs £79/year ($99). Presumably if your subscription lapses any previously re

And, not mentioned in the article... you have to have an Apple Developer ID which costs £79/year ($99). Presumably if your subscription lapses any previously released software will stop working? That is the part I find most offensive, if it was just difficult and buggy I would suck it up and work around it. But having to pay for the privilege is too painful, particularly if you're offering free software. For my case (non GUI app) I can at least distribute via Homebrew and have the user build from source in a more or less automated way. Another notarization helper tool is here https://github.com/mitchellh/gon https://github.com/mitchellh/gon

sitharus 6y ago
Code signing isn’t linked to an active developer subscription, if it lapses all existing signatures are still valid - you just can’t sign more.
- foepys 6y ago
  What happens when the cert root expires? Does it not expire or does Apple grant an eternal valid signature when apps were signed before the root expired?
  - jerrysievert 6y ago
    For apps I’ve downloaded on my iPhone, there are sometimes updates that denote Apple updated the key. Assuming that’s App Store only behavior though.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Apple just did this recently for iOS 14.5, actually.
galad87 6y ago
No, if your subscription lapses previously released software won't stop working. If you are offering free software you can sign with an ad-hoc certificate, and instruct the user on how to bypass gatekeeper, which isn't great at all but it doesn't cost any $$.
- Gorbzel 6y ago
  Happy Friday everyone. Day ending in 'y', so it's time for that never ending HN Apple haters groupthink exercise: 1. Linux desktop advocate describes a supposed technical implementation from Apple that seems extremely walled garden and onerous if accurate. 2. Outrage ensues. 3. It's never true.
  - lstamour 6y ago
    In this case I think it is accurate given forum post evidence, but possibly dated to 2019 given other dates on the page and the fact that Big Sur is not mentioned.
  - Klonoar 6y ago
    This puts it well, albeit with (enjoyable) snark. So often these criticisms read like it’s expected that Apple conform to the Linux “model” of doing things, and anything else is like the plague.
- anentropic 6y ago
  Looks like this explains how: https://www.digicert.com/kb/code-signing/mac-os-codesign-tool.htm https://www.digicert.com/kb/code-signing/mac-os-codesign-too... but... "only Apple Developer code signing certificates are compatible with GateKeeper" Does code-signing with an ad hoc certificate and no notarization provide any better experience than just unsigned code? Do you get a friendlier message (c/f "malicious software: Move to Trash") when Gatekeeper blocks it?
  - galad87 6y ago
    Unsigned (arm64) binaries don't run at all on M1 Macs, so yes, an ad-hoc certificate provides a better experience ;)
    - anentropic 6y ago
      I just tried an unsigned bin on M1 Big Sur and the experience is the same: it's initially blocked with a "Move to Trash" dialog but you can go to security prefs and click "allow anyway" Then try again, click "open" rather than "move to trash" on another warning dialog and the file does get run. I haven't tried a signed+un-notarized one but it sounds like it'd be similar?

sitharus 6y ago

Code signing isn’t linked to an active developer subscription, if it lapses all existing signatures are still valid - you just can’t sign more.

foepys 6y ago
What happens when the cert root expires? Does it not expire or does Apple grant an eternal valid signature when apps were signed before the root expired?
- jerrysievert 6y ago
  For apps I’ve downloaded on my iPhone, there are sometimes updates that denote Apple updated the key. Assuming that’s App Store only behavior though.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Apple just did this recently for iOS 14.5, actually.

galad87 6y ago

No, if your subscription lapses previously released software won't stop working. If you are offering free software you can sign with an ad-hoc certificate, and instruct the user on how to bypass gatekeeper, which isn't great at all but it doesn't cost any $$.

Gorbzel 6y ago
Happy Friday everyone. Day ending in 'y', so it's time for that never ending HN Apple haters groupthink exercise: 1. Linux desktop advocate describes a supposed technical implementation from Apple that seems extremely walled garden and onerous if accurate. 2. Outrage ensues. 3. It's never true.
- lstamour 6y ago
  In this case I think it is accurate given forum post evidence, but possibly dated to 2019 given other dates on the page and the fact that Big Sur is not mentioned.
- Klonoar 6y ago
  This puts it well, albeit with (enjoyable) snark. So often these criticisms read like it’s expected that Apple conform to the Linux “model” of doing things, and anything else is like the plague.
anentropic 6y ago
Looks like this explains how: https://www.digicert.com/kb/code-signing/mac-os-codesign-tool.htm https://www.digicert.com/kb/code-signing/mac-os-codesign-too... but... "only Apple Developer code signing certificates are compatible with GateKeeper" Does code-signing with an ad hoc certificate and no notarization provide any better experience than just unsigned code? Do you get a friendlier message (c/f "malicious software: Move to Trash") when Gatekeeper blocks it?
- galad87 6y ago
  Unsigned (arm64) binaries don't run at all on M1 Macs, so yes, an ad-hoc certificate provides a better experience ;)
  - anentropic 6y ago
    I just tried an unsigned bin on M1 Big Sur and the experience is the same: it's initially blocked with a "Move to Trash" dialog but you can go to security prefs and click "allow anyway" Then try again, click "open" rather than "move to trash" on another warning dialog and the file does get run. I haven't tried a signed+un-notarized one but it sounds like it'd be similar?