13 ms·

> Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting

• turquoisevar 3y ago
  This falls squarely under the exemptions for security reasons under article 6 sub 4 of the DMA. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
  • julkali 3y ago
    The key here is "proportionate". Notarization surely adds to the security of the platform, but it may be misused by Apple easily ...
  • diffeomorphism 3y ago
    The "duly justified" might not be that far reaching. Sure, notarization seems like a valid cause, but there is no reason why it should be exclusively the provider of one specific app store who offers notarization. In particular, if it happens that it is more onerous or restrictive on non-Apple stores, that justification starts looking very shaky.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• gumby 3y ago
  Apple and the EU have been discussing the implementation for some time so it seems extremely likely this has all been OKed already. In particular, I’m sure the issue of apps (FB app with a virus or spyware) on a random App Store is a concern to the EU. Not defending Apple per se (they sure don’t need help) but going with the public statements of both Apple and the EU leading up to this.
  • rany_ 3y ago
    If they actually okayed it, then I hope the EU reconsiders. In effect, Apple's tight grip on what apps you could run remains. I am also disappointed that those changes are EU-only, I hope most governments impose similar laws so that Apple just gives up and makes it global.
    • pertymcpert 3y ago
      This is different from the usual App Store review. It's to prevent malware.
      • octacat 3y ago
        I think in this case some antivirus companies from EU could do notarisation. Of course, companies that have a good track record and would actually do the proper job. No need to depend on Apple to do it. We do not have a single SSL CA, for example.
      • rany_ 3y ago
        IMHO it seems like it's there only to enforce that "Core Technology Fee" and even then I don't buy that argument. Malware already slips through Apple's "strict" App Store review process.
        • lwkl 3y ago
          Malware also slips through sandboxes and other security measures. That doesn‘t mean they are useless. App review and notarization helps a lot with security. But there will always be errors.
• samcat116 3y ago
  Notarization has been enforced for all apps on the Mac for years. Would the DMA have an issue with requiring signed drivers? Seems a similar baseline. Personally I’m totally ok with that. I haven’t seen a single instance of them not notarizing something or revoking it for something that wasn’t actually malicious.
  • rany_ 3y ago
    You could actually disable the notarization enforcement entirely on the Mac or selectively depending on the file. So I don't think it's that bad.
  • LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    That would be crazy if it were true. The only thing that is enforced on Mac is a scary pop up window.
  • Ukv 3y ago
    > I haven’t seen a single instance of them not notarizing something or revoking it for something that wasn’t actually malicious. Apple did threaten to cut off Epic's ability to notarize Unreal Engine[0], until ordered not to by the court[1]. [0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/17/apple-terminate-epic-developer-accounts-august-28/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/17/apple-terminate-epic-de... [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-apple-lawsuit-restraining-order-unreal-engine https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
    • threeseed 3y ago
      That's because Epic maliciously violated the terms of service. In fact they did so deliberately to help them in their court cases.
      • Ukv 3y ago
        Gatekeeper/notarization are intended to stop malware, which Unreal Engine is not. Apple may well have a valid business dispute (over another application on another platform), but it's an abuse of the system and control they have to obstruct a Mac owner from running non-malware software on their own computer. Luckily the court stopped them retaliating in this case, but it gives me reason to be concerned about expansion of the "it's Apple's device and will always act in Apple's interests over the owner's" mentality from iOS towards Mac desktops.
• flumpcakes 3y ago
  I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles. What I think is very underhanded is charging per install for 'core services' rather than per app review. It's not like the app has to be notarized/reviewed for every install.
  • rany_ 3y ago
    I assume the notarization is there to enforce this, which is why I think it is way worse than the fee itself.
    • samcat116 3y ago
      Notarization is a completely automated system to scan for malware. It has existed for many years
      • arlcode 3y ago
        How else are they gonna obligate developers to pay the core fee then. Once tooling catches up, in theory, developers don't have a contractual relationship with apple anymore, except to get notarized. The devices belong to the users apple sold the hardware and licensed the software to them not app developers. They could charge the users but obviously this would be a terrible idea. Getting notarized will either directly require payment of the platform fee or will force the use of the official tools which will mandate that.
        • kaba0 3y ago
          Nonprofits, governments etc don’t have to pay a fee, so in effect it means we will have the AppStore, and a few free, open-source alternatives. That is absolutely a win to the common people. And it’s not like other companies taken a hit - they can either stay on the AppStore and have their finances go through their “taxing”, or create an alternative store and find a proper monetizing strategy. They can calculate what makes sense, but it makes it hard for Facebook/google to exercise their network effect for creating a new app store at the expense of users.
• chatmasta 3y ago
  I don't see how this isn't effectively an app store in itself. If Apple can forbid an app from running on user devices, then they need to approve every app that is installed. More importantly, they are effectively blackmailing developers to pay them "per install," which is only enforceable through the notarization process. That sounds an awful lot like an app store. I agree, the EU will not like this. Too bad it'll take another 3-5 years to fix.
  • bandergirl 3y ago
    > Too bad it'll take another 3-5 years to fix. Sounds like we’re getting a fat paycheck from Apple via the EU in the meanwhile then.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      I didn't know "we" were lawyers here. I don't have any IOS devices, but I'm expecting maybe $50 (and I'm being generous) to come as a result of a similar lawsuit on Google over over-charging for IAPs.
      • bandergirl 3y ago
        We Europeans in form of fines. I’m not talking about class actions. Completely different market.
• sircastor 3y ago
  While I don't disagree that the EU won't like it, I don't see this as malicious compliance. The only reason this hasn't been in iOS up until now was distribution was already restricted through the app store. There was already signing going on. This just moves the signing to being an explicit step because distributors won't be signing for the App Store.
• derefr 3y ago
  The problem with disabling notarization, is that it's something any trojan-horse malware author would have a glossy slideshow walking you through doing as part of the install process for their "meet sexy singles in your area and double your money instantly!" app. And then you'd run the app, and it wouldn't blow up your phone, but just be a bit disappointing and something you'd delete — but meanwhile, the app would have used some 0day exploit to get a foothold outside the app sandbox, and so now your phone would be a silent node in a botnet, able to be C&Ced to DDoS targets or act as a VPN for nefarious account registrations or so forth. (Did you know that there are many such botnets made of Android devices? But none so far for iOS devices. There's a reason for that!) --- If it's not clear, by the way, Apple's "notarization" is, under the covers, just plain-old code signing. Just like every modern consumer OS has for apps, regardless of whether you get them from an app store or from the web. So that the platform can protect users from obvious viruses by just revoking the code cert. Mind you, notarization is code-signing that requires you to submit your binary to Apple... but it's my understanding that this notarization still operates in two phases — a quick, synchronous phase, and a slower, asynchronous phase — and that the synchronous checks in the notarization process, before you get your cert signed, are only checks against the known signatures of various exploit techniques. (Again, just like every other consumer OS comes up with some way to get done — whether that be through required submission at signing time, or by submission of novel software by virus scanners that find the software on your disk, or even by web browsers as they download the software. Just try to develop Windows software, on Windows, without implicitly submitting binary "samples" to Microsoft through some route or another. It's very hard!) Apple is somewhat unique among platforms, in having certain other virus-signature like patterns that their notarization backend takes note of, that won't trigger synchronous rejection, but rather will trigger Apple employees to do an async review of the application. (AFAIK, when this happens, you still get your app's cert signed right away; the cert might just get blacklisted some time later, if it turns out under closer human scrutiny that you were in fact doing something malicious.) It is my understanding that the things Apple flags for human investigation, consist of use of certain system framework calls, that only very powerful and low-level system software should be doing — think, the sorts of calls unique to Virtual Machine hypervisor software, or to third-party file-system driver software. Rootkit code-smells, in other words. Note that none of this is about what your app does for the user. Apple's notarization system — as Gatekeeper on macOS, or as part of Enterprise MDM iOS app deployment — has never suppressed or censored any app due to its nature. It's only about what it's doing that it's not supposed to be doing "according to what's on the tin." Apple is doing the same thing through notarization that the FDA does to foods and drugs: holding companies to their claims of their products being fit-for-purpose and non-adulterated. (And although this is currently entirely a thing Apple is simply trusted to do in good faith, there's nothing stopping the EU from mandating that Apple's notarization going forward, consist of exactly these kind of technical checks and no more. I think that'd be a great idea, personally.)