4 ms·

Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs? I gues

Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs? I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling. I wonder how difficult it will be to get developer IDs. Might be a market for them. Will be fun to uninstall a developers software from every machine by stealing his cert, releasing some malware signed with it, and then waiting for Apple to push out a revocation cert.

st3fan 15y ago
If you are worried about that then just allow apps from the Mac App store? For many people that will be a good choice.
JonnieCache 15y ago
>Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Or, the signing key will be stolen, like it always is. I'd wager that blackhats around the world are currently tendering to cartels for this contract as we speak.
- shadowfiend 15y ago
  Neither of these will work, because (a) the signing key is per-developer and (b) the entire point is that when your malware is found to be signed with key X, key X is revoked and your software no longer runs. That's the purpose of the system...
  - rmc 15y ago
    So the signing key for $COMPANY will now be worth money for extorsion.
    - shadowfiend 15y ago
      And is, again, instantly revokable. It'll be annoying if it's stolen, but you just revoke it, give the company the new one, and update the app in the app store (or your download, if you're not in the store). This is arguably far better than being unknowingly hit by malware.
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    He's referring to the master key, which will be used to sign the per developer signing keys. If that is stolen, then it will be possible to sign arbitrary signing keys and issue arbitrary revocation certificates.
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      >He's referring to the master key Yeah, that.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
batista 15y ago
Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs? Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was: a) a trojan (you had to install it yourself) and b) only affected like 10 users
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else? The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are signed first. Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course. EDIT: After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
  - ugh 15y ago
    They don’t want to be forced to play catch up like Microsoft had to. It’s not that hard to figure out.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - rbehrends 15y ago
    > If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Presumably, in order to keep the problem small. If OS X grows in marketshare, it will become an increasingly attractive target for malware developers. If the default is that the majority of Apple users only run signed applications (this also means that the certificate wasn't revoked), then the number of possible "users" for your malware is greatly reduced, making OS X a much less attractive target platform for malware developers. > After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed? If you are a legitimate developer, then there's no reason not to (assuming it actually is free and easy, which isn't clear). As a malware developer, there's little point; as soon as the developer ID is being used for malware, Apple will revoke the corresponding certificate, and your malware won't run.

st3fan 15y ago

If you are worried about that then just allow apps from the Mac App store? For many people that will be a good choice.

JonnieCache 15y ago

>Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Or, the signing key will be stolen, like it always is. I'd wager that blackhats around the world are currently tendering to cartels for this contract as we speak.

shadowfiend 15y ago
Neither of these will work, because (a) the signing key is per-developer and (b) the entire point is that when your malware is found to be signed with key X, key X is revoked and your software no longer runs. That's the purpose of the system...
- rmc 15y ago
  So the signing key for $COMPANY will now be worth money for extorsion.
  - shadowfiend 15y ago
    And is, again, instantly revokable. It'll be annoying if it's stolen, but you just revoke it, give the company the new one, and update the app in the app store (or your download, if you're not in the store). This is arguably far better than being unknowingly hit by malware.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  He's referring to the master key, which will be used to sign the per developer signing keys. If that is stolen, then it will be possible to sign arbitrary signing keys and issue arbitrary revocation certificates.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    >He's referring to the master key Yeah, that.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

batista 15y ago

Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs? Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was: a) a trojan (you had to install it yourself) and b) only affected like 10 users

mike-cardwell 15y ago
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else? The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are signed first. Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course. EDIT: After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
- ugh 15y ago
  They don’t want to be forced to play catch up like Microsoft had to. It’s not that hard to figure out.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- rbehrends 15y ago
  > If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Presumably, in order to keep the problem small. If OS X grows in marketshare, it will become an increasingly attractive target for malware developers. If the default is that the majority of Apple users only run signed applications (this also means that the certificate wasn't revoked), then the number of possible "users" for your malware is greatly reduced, making OS X a much less attractive target platform for malware developers. > After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed? If you are a legitimate developer, then there's no reason not to (assuming it actually is free and easy, which isn't clear). As a malware developer, there's little point; as soon as the developer ID is being used for malware, Apple will revoke the corresponding certificate, and your malware won't run.