8 ms·

It seems like the OS is either defaulting to allowing only only App Store applications or at least only (Apple-)signed applications: http://www.apple.com/macosx

by pilif 15y ago

It seems like the OS is either defaulting to allowing only only App Store applications or at least only (Apple-)signed applications: http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html It's still possible to turn this off, but I have a feeling that we should enjoy our freedom to run GNU grep instead of BSD grep for as long as it lasts.

oomkiller 15y ago
For some reason I doubt that this runs all the way down to the UNIX level of things. It's probably just the restriction to only run signed .app bundles, and maybe signed installer packages. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
gue5t 15y ago
I wonder how long it'll take crackers to get their hands on a master signing key.
- sjwright 15y ago
  About as long as it took them to get their hands on the iPhone master signing key, I'd wager.
st3fan 15y ago
Read what Gruber writes about that Gatekeep feature: My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion: * Only those from the App Store * Only those from the App Store or which are signed by a developer ID * Any app, whether signed or unsigned The default for this setting is, I say, exactly right: the one in the middle, disallowing only unsigned apps. This default setting benefits users by increasing practical security, and also benefits developers, preserving the freedom to ship whatever software they want for the Mac, with no approval process.
- pilif 15y ago
  Gruber was telling that the Apple ID was going to be free. It isn't. It requires a Mac Developer account as far as I could understand it. When I was 15 I wrote a Taskbar dialer for Windows 9x and later NT (this was in the modem days. Of course I haven't updated it in ages and the only reason my old webpage is still there is because I found it by accident in an old backup, but here is a google search for it: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask). I published that on the various download pages and it was good enough to even be featured in dead-tree publications. Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate. With this rule in place I would never have been able to publish that dialer. I would never have felt how it is to make something that others can use and find useful. I would never have ended up where I am today. Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No. Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely. I might be an old fart, but this is far from acceptable.
  - jbrennan 15y ago
    >Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate. Yes but things change. Old fart or not, you're into technology, we all have to realize things change!
    - chairface 15y ago
      And he's saying that this change is for the worse. He has made substantive arguments, and you have responded with a useless platitude.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Hold on, XCode is free (without a developer login) you could install that and write the app. You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did. And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher. Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
va_coder 15y ago
Will someone from Canonical team up with someone like Samsung to create a kick-ass, no hassle Linux laptop with a decent battery life? I've got money I'm dying to give you!
- herge 15y ago
  2012 will be the year for Linux on the desktop!
- batista 15y ago
  Apple has a top dog and a few bosses. Who exactly will co-ordinate 1,000 OSS projects to give you a hassle free experience? There ARE ways to make a kick-ass, no hassle Linux OS, even better than OS X and more open (and still open source). But all of them involve throwing top dollar into it, starting a few projects from scratch, forking a few existing ones and stoping the bazaar-style, design by committee, approach. You should only rely on upstream bazaar-style approach for the userland (like OS X does) and server backend stuff, not for visible UI, no core components, no libraries. Canonical, and all other Linux companies, always just wanted to act like integrators, instead of creators. Except maybe in a few select areas.
oinksoft 15y ago
This is a scary preview of Apple's vision of desktop computing (which we all anticipated with the App Store being brought over from the iPhone world to the desktop): The safest place to find apps for your Mac is the Mac App Store. That’s because the developers who create them are known to Apple, and the apps are carefully reviewed before they’re accepted in the store. As I've had no reason to upgrade my home PC from 10.6 to 10.7, EOL for 10.6 will probably be when I ditch the Mac and just dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's really amazing how much Apple has changed since the pre-OSX days.
- krig 15y ago
  I hope you realize that Debian and Ubuntu and most of the large distros already have this: Known, vetted packages, signed and trusted, distributed through a central database. Frankly, I think it's a great idea. People in general shouldn't be downloading and executing random binaries on their machines. I think it would be great if the major distros also refused to install unsigned binaries without explicitly being told to allow it.
  - oinksoft 15y ago
    I don't think that's a very good comparison. A project in the Mac world begins and ends its life as a .app. This effort by Apple means that the vast majority of users will only see "approved" software. In the Linux world, most software begins as a .tgz, and earns packagers as it becomes more popular. There are only a few things really keeping a package out of the main Debain repositories: Being "non-free" (which takes it out of "main"), being clearly malicious, and not attracting enough interest to have a maintainer/packager. I think we've seen with the iPhone that Apple has very, very different criteria. Further, Debian hosts something in the ballpark of 20,000 packages: I seriously doubt we'll ever see such diversity for the Mac, especially with their developer fees. The other force driving me away is their refusal to accept GPL3 software. I don't like having to build things myself that every Linux distribution provides so easily.
    - krig 15y ago
      Well, it's down to who decides that an app is trustworthy. In the open source world, this is done through vetting by the community, whereas in Apple's case they can afford to hire people to do it. I agree that the community approach is likely to be better, but I don't think the Apple approach is inherently evil, just inefficient. The stated goals of Apple for gatekeeping apps are practically the same as signing packages in the distros: To protect unwary users from installing malicious or broken applications. I think that's a worthy goal.
jws 15y ago
That middle option, the default, is Developer Signed applications. Apple keeps the keyring and can torch the developer's key if they go rogue, but the developer does the signing. The model essentially matches Debian package distribution. (And as mentioned by oomkiller, this won't go down to unix, it is just the "application" launching.) Edit: pilaf's reply got down voted into oblivion. What he suggests is flawed because applications are not in your PATH. But in the spirit, your application could write malware into somewhere on the PATH, and could find an exploit to get the setuid bit turned on. As soon as someone realizes this, Apple should kill your signing key thereby blocking the distribution vector. It will not help in cleaning up the mess. The victim is still looking at an "erase disk, reinstall, restore backup DATA ONLY!" recovery as they should anytime they lose control of a machine.
- pilif 15y ago
  So I call my malware 'ls', set it to suid root and have my victims double click that? Fine. Thanks.
amurmann 15y ago
As a developer and anti-corporatist I think this is a thread to our freedom and will eventually result in the MacAppStore being a giant rip-off for developers. However, as a son of parents who don't understand the difference between their Apple account and their Google account and call him because a webpage tells them that they have a virus and should download some shady program right now, I can appreciate this security measure.
mortenjorck 15y ago
Nothing surprised me nearly as much as Gatekeeper. A middle ground for security, rather than attempting to further sweep every developer into the App Store? It's impressive to see Apple pursuing a pragmatic balancing act instead of simply staying a course of consolidation.

by pilif 15y ago

oomkiller 15y ago

For some reason I doubt that this runs all the way down to the UNIX level of things. It's probably just the restriction to only run signed .app bundles, and maybe signed installer packages. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

gue5t 15y ago

I wonder how long it'll take crackers to get their hands on a master signing key.

sjwright 15y ago
About as long as it took them to get their hands on the iPhone master signing key, I'd wager.

st3fan 15y ago

Read what Gruber writes about that Gatekeep feature: My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion: * Only those from the App Store * Only those from the App Store or which are signed by a developer ID * Any app, whether signed or unsigned The default for this setting is, I say, exactly right: the one in the middle, disallowing only unsigned apps. This default setting benefits users by increasing practical security, and also benefits developers, preserving the freedom to ship whatever software they want for the Mac, with no approval process.

pilif 15y ago
Gruber was telling that the Apple ID was going to be free. It isn't. It requires a Mac Developer account as far as I could understand it. When I was 15 I wrote a Taskbar dialer for Windows 9x and later NT (this was in the modem days. Of course I haven't updated it in ages and the only reason my old webpage is still there is because I found it by accident in an old backup, but here is a google search for it: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask). I published that on the various download pages and it was good enough to even be featured in dead-tree publications. Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate. With this rule in place I would never have been able to publish that dialer. I would never have felt how it is to make something that others can use and find useful. I would never have ended up where I am today. Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No. Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely. I might be an old fart, but this is far from acceptable.
- jbrennan 15y ago
  >Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate. Yes but things change. Old fart or not, you're into technology, we all have to realize things change!
  - chairface 15y ago
    And he's saying that this change is for the worse. He has made substantive arguments, and you have responded with a useless platitude.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  Hold on, XCode is free (without a developer login) you could install that and write the app. You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did. And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher. Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?

va_coder 15y ago

Will someone from Canonical team up with someone like Samsung to create a kick-ass, no hassle Linux laptop with a decent battery life? I've got money I'm dying to give you!

herge 15y ago
2012 will be the year for Linux on the desktop!
batista 15y ago
Apple has a top dog and a few bosses. Who exactly will co-ordinate 1,000 OSS projects to give you a hassle free experience? There ARE ways to make a kick-ass, no hassle Linux OS, even better than OS X and more open (and still open source). But all of them involve throwing top dollar into it, starting a few projects from scratch, forking a few existing ones and stoping the bazaar-style, design by committee, approach. You should only rely on upstream bazaar-style approach for the userland (like OS X does) and server backend stuff, not for visible UI, no core components, no libraries. Canonical, and all other Linux companies, always just wanted to act like integrators, instead of creators. Except maybe in a few select areas.

oinksoft 15y ago

This is a scary preview of Apple's vision of desktop computing (which we all anticipated with the App Store being brought over from the iPhone world to the desktop): The safest place to find apps for your Mac is the Mac App Store. That’s because the developers who create them are known to Apple, and the apps are carefully reviewed before they’re accepted in the store. As I've had no reason to upgrade my home PC from 10.6 to 10.7, EOL for 10.6 will probably be when I ditch the Mac and just dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's really amazing how much Apple has changed since the pre-OSX days.

krig 15y ago
I hope you realize that Debian and Ubuntu and most of the large distros already have this: Known, vetted packages, signed and trusted, distributed through a central database. Frankly, I think it's a great idea. People in general shouldn't be downloading and executing random binaries on their machines. I think it would be great if the major distros also refused to install unsigned binaries without explicitly being told to allow it.
- oinksoft 15y ago
  I don't think that's a very good comparison. A project in the Mac world begins and ends its life as a .app. This effort by Apple means that the vast majority of users will only see "approved" software. In the Linux world, most software begins as a .tgz, and earns packagers as it becomes more popular. There are only a few things really keeping a package out of the main Debain repositories: Being "non-free" (which takes it out of "main"), being clearly malicious, and not attracting enough interest to have a maintainer/packager. I think we've seen with the iPhone that Apple has very, very different criteria. Further, Debian hosts something in the ballpark of 20,000 packages: I seriously doubt we'll ever see such diversity for the Mac, especially with their developer fees. The other force driving me away is their refusal to accept GPL3 software. I don't like having to build things myself that every Linux distribution provides so easily.
  - krig 15y ago
    Well, it's down to who decides that an app is trustworthy. In the open source world, this is done through vetting by the community, whereas in Apple's case they can afford to hire people to do it. I agree that the community approach is likely to be better, but I don't think the Apple approach is inherently evil, just inefficient. The stated goals of Apple for gatekeeping apps are practically the same as signing packages in the distros: To protect unwary users from installing malicious or broken applications. I think that's a worthy goal.

jws 15y ago

That middle option, the default, is Developer Signed applications. Apple keeps the keyring and can torch the developer's key if they go rogue, but the developer does the signing. The model essentially matches Debian package distribution. (And as mentioned by oomkiller, this won't go down to unix, it is just the "application" launching.) Edit: pilaf's reply got down voted into oblivion. What he suggests is flawed because applications are not in your PATH. But in the spirit, your application could write malware into somewhere on the PATH, and could find an exploit to get the setuid bit turned on. As soon as someone realizes this, Apple should kill your signing key thereby blocking the distribution vector. It will not help in cleaning up the mess. The victim is still looking at an "erase disk, reinstall, restore backup DATA ONLY!" recovery as they should anytime they lose control of a machine.

pilif 15y ago
So I call my malware 'ls', set it to suid root and have my victims double click that? Fine. Thanks.

amurmann 15y ago

As a developer and anti-corporatist I think this is a thread to our freedom and will eventually result in the MacAppStore being a giant rip-off for developers. However, as a son of parents who don't understand the difference between their Apple account and their Google account and call him because a webpage tells them that they have a virus and should download some shady program right now, I can appreciate this security measure.

mortenjorck 15y ago

Nothing surprised me nearly as much as Gatekeeper. A middle ground for security, rather than attempting to further sweep every developer into the App Store? It's impressive to see Apple pursuing a pragmatic balancing act instead of simply staying a course of consolidation.