5 ms·

Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way

by gary_0 4y ago

Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way around that is to be a big company (or a big open-source project). If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, but why bother with that when you can just point your Web browser at a program running on someone else's server? Oh, but consent to these tracking cookies first.

userbinator 4y ago
they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.
- gary_0 4y ago
  Call me paranoid, but I see it as a slippery slope. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    They are certainly boiling the frog slowly. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways. On the other hand, I find it ironic how a lot of "security professionals" will complain constantly about users accepting security warnings with no thought anyway (and they usually use this argument to justify their increasingly authoritarian measures of controlling them.)
    - charleslmunger 4y ago
      It can be simultaneously true that a warning can be a barrier to adoption of your software product versus a competitor, and that a warning is not an effective barrier for a user who thinks they're installing an unreleased video game or going to receive millions of dollars of crypto from foreign royalty.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Actually, in a way, it is. All Microsoft has to do is revoke your application's signing certificate and Windows Defender will prevent it from running on Windows computers. Apple does the same thing with Notarization and Gatekeeper on macOS. If they choose to revoke your signing certificate, Gatekeeper will prevent your software from running on macOS. That means if you do, say or compete with something that Microsoft or Apple doesn't like, they can prevent your apps from running on their platforms.
  - cyberpunk 4y ago
    How come I can run so much software compiled from source then?
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      I don't know what platform you're using, what app distribution method you used, where the code was compiled, if the code was signed, where it was signed and by who, etc. A generic answer to your question is that the software was signed by whoever compiled or distributed the software, which can include your own machine. Your own key might be in your trust store or your app distribution method might put their key in your trust store. Both macOS and Windows will treat software compiled on the same system it is run on as blessed to run without strict signing checks. On macOS, ad-hoc certificates can be used, but the OS will treat those binaries as if they're radioactive. If you compiled code on macOS, the system will treat that software specially on that specific system and allow you to run it[1]. On Windows, certificates can be added to trust stores. Chocolatey, for example, has their own signing certificate for all of the compiled open source software they have in their repositories, so Windows allows their software to run. The biggest issue is what comes with software distribution itself, where your code isn't blessed by default by the system it was compiled on, or doesn't have signing certificates in the users' trust stores, and Gatekeeper and Windows Defender go out of their way to stop your users from running software with signing certificates they don't like. [1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854
      - cyberpunk 4y ago
kevingadd 4y ago
Code signing and associated warnings are significantly different from fully prohibiting the execution of unapproved code, I'm not sure why people struggle with the distinction. Windows has been doing this mostly the same way for literal decades. iOS has a full sandbox which would apply even to "side loaded" applications, which makes the arbitrary constraint even more ridiculous as a "for your own good" measure.
parker_mountain 4y ago
>If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, these OSes were designed decades ago, before we really had a good grasp on security. there were other significant concerns as well, such as performance also, modern OS toolkits, such as on macos and windows 11, are moving towards a permission and API model that will allow sandboxing. In fact, macos is moving quite quickly towards this. And lastly, there is a widely deployed OS that runs all applications in a proper sandbox: chromeos I think it's understood at this point by everyone in the industry that sandboxing is the future, but it's taking a while to get there.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > before we really had a good grasp on security Not just that, but before we realised just how many people there would be trying to claw their way into any gap for all manner of dark purposes. Early networked OS and protocol designers thought that people would, largely, cooperate with each other and share resources for the greater good. I wish to live in their naively optimistic future, instead of the one with real humans :/
cookiengineer 4y ago
Fun fact: This is the reason google pivoted to the web, after being blocked as an alternative office suite on Windows. They realized that they need to change the platform for distribution, and hence this is why the web (post-chromium) is now what it is...with all its absurd redundancies of APIs and bloat. Only because Microsoft can't keep their shit together. Apple is more complicated, because despite the absolute control they've established (no other browser engine / JIT compiler process allowed for whatever made up reasons) they did not face the European courts that forced Microsoft for the exact same thing to allow to install other Browsers. And now we are stuck with Safari, repeating the loop, because Apple can't keep their shit together.
mhoad 4y ago
If you hate cookies you’re going to be posted when you find out what’s happening in native apps. It’s an order of magnitude worse they just don’t have to ask or inform you first

by gary_0 4y ago

userbinator 4y ago

they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.

gary_0 4y ago
Call me paranoid, but I see it as a slippery slope. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways.
- userbinator 4y ago
  They are certainly boiling the frog slowly. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways. On the other hand, I find it ironic how a lot of "security professionals" will complain constantly about users accepting security warnings with no thought anyway (and they usually use this argument to justify their increasingly authoritarian measures of controlling them.)
  - charleslmunger 4y ago
    It can be simultaneously true that a warning can be a barrier to adoption of your software product versus a competitor, and that a warning is not an effective barrier for a user who thinks they're installing an unreleased video game or going to receive millions of dollars of crypto from foreign royalty.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Actually, in a way, it is. All Microsoft has to do is revoke your application's signing certificate and Windows Defender will prevent it from running on Windows computers. Apple does the same thing with Notarization and Gatekeeper on macOS. If they choose to revoke your signing certificate, Gatekeeper will prevent your software from running on macOS. That means if you do, say or compete with something that Microsoft or Apple doesn't like, they can prevent your apps from running on their platforms.
- cyberpunk 4y ago
  How come I can run so much software compiled from source then?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    I don't know what platform you're using, what app distribution method you used, where the code was compiled, if the code was signed, where it was signed and by who, etc. A generic answer to your question is that the software was signed by whoever compiled or distributed the software, which can include your own machine. Your own key might be in your trust store or your app distribution method might put their key in your trust store. Both macOS and Windows will treat software compiled on the same system it is run on as blessed to run without strict signing checks. On macOS, ad-hoc certificates can be used, but the OS will treat those binaries as if they're radioactive. If you compiled code on macOS, the system will treat that software specially on that specific system and allow you to run it[1]. On Windows, certificates can be added to trust stores. Chocolatey, for example, has their own signing certificate for all of the compiled open source software they have in their repositories, so Windows allows their software to run. The biggest issue is what comes with software distribution itself, where your code isn't blessed by default by the system it was compiled on, or doesn't have signing certificates in the users' trust stores, and Gatekeeper and Windows Defender go out of their way to stop your users from running software with signing certificates they don't like. [1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854
    - cyberpunk 4y ago

kevingadd 4y ago

Code signing and associated warnings are significantly different from fully prohibiting the execution of unapproved code, I'm not sure why people struggle with the distinction. Windows has been doing this mostly the same way for literal decades. iOS has a full sandbox which would apply even to "side loaded" applications, which makes the arbitrary constraint even more ridiculous as a "for your own good" measure.

parker_mountain 4y ago

>If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, these OSes were designed decades ago, before we really had a good grasp on security. there were other significant concerns as well, such as performance also, modern OS toolkits, such as on macos and windows 11, are moving towards a permission and API model that will allow sandboxing. In fact, macos is moving quite quickly towards this. And lastly, there is a widely deployed OS that runs all applications in a proper sandbox: chromeos I think it's understood at this point by everyone in the industry that sandboxing is the future, but it's taking a while to get there.

Nursie 4y ago
> before we really had a good grasp on security Not just that, but before we realised just how many people there would be trying to claw their way into any gap for all manner of dark purposes. Early networked OS and protocol designers thought that people would, largely, cooperate with each other and share resources for the greater good. I wish to live in their naively optimistic future, instead of the one with real humans :/

cookiengineer 4y ago

Fun fact: This is the reason google pivoted to the web, after being blocked as an alternative office suite on Windows. They realized that they need to change the platform for distribution, and hence this is why the web (post-chromium) is now what it is...with all its absurd redundancies of APIs and bloat. Only because Microsoft can't keep their shit together. Apple is more complicated, because despite the absolute control they've established (no other browser engine / JIT compiler process allowed for whatever made up reasons) they did not face the European courts that forced Microsoft for the exact same thing to allow to install other Browsers. And now we are stuck with Safari, repeating the loop, because Apple can't keep their shit together.

mhoad 4y ago

If you hate cookies you’re going to be posted when you find out what’s happening in native apps. It’s an order of magnitude worse they just don’t have to ask or inform you first