4 ms·

I mean, you can download source if you want to run it. It isn’t a complete nightmare yet. I think we’re still in a grey area. This will help some people still,

I mean, you can download source if you want to run it. It isn’t a complete nightmare yet. I think we’re still in a grey area. This will help some people still, though it’ll definitely hinder others (myself included). Once you need to be in the apple developer program to build and run from source or something, that’ll be a legitimate nightmare. But we’re nowhere near that yet.

skrrtww 2y ago
> Once you need to be in the apple developer program to build and run from source or something, that’ll be a legitimate nightmare. But we’re nowhere near that yet. This is the case for building and running things with restricted entitlements and system extensions. Unless you disable system integrity protection entirely, which locks you out of your purchased App Store software, DRM content, etc.
- adastra22 2y ago
  You can no longer disable system integrity protection.
  - NotPractical 2y ago
    Source?
    - adastra22 2y ago
      The release notes for Sequoia.
      - sbuk 2y ago
        Nope. Not the enterprise release notes or the security content notes either.
        adastra22 2y ago
        What I'm referencing is that they removed `spctl --master-disable`. This was referenced in release notes that I read upon upgrading, and testing it on my own system confirms it is gone. Looks like there might be a way of achieving the same thing through the GUI? https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOSBeta/comments/1e2xlcg/disabling_gatekeeper_on_macos_sequoia_beta_3_has/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOSBeta/comments/1e2xlcg/disablin...
        NotPractical 2y ago
        That's Gatekeeper, not System Integrity Protection. You can disable SIP with `csrutil` by rebooting into the macOS recovery environment.
  - pcwalton 2y ago
    You can [1]. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/1fh5wez/cant_disable_sip_in_sequoia/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/1fh5wez/cant_di...
- dur-randir 2y ago
  >which locks you out of your purchased App Store software, DRM content Also false. But Apple's glad you believe in that.
  - skrrtww 2y ago
    I was mistaken; I was conflating Permissive Security with SIP. Permissive Security does have those limitations.
  - NotPractical 2y ago
    It does lock you out of iOS apps, Apple Pay, and 4K streaming of DRM content [1]. But that's not so bad I suppose. [1] https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/RecordingIndicatorUtility?tab=readme-ov-file#troubleshooting-tips https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/RecordingIndicatorUtili...
ryandrake 2y ago
> Once you need to be in the apple developer program to build and run from source or something, that’ll be a legitimate nightmare. But we’re nowhere near that yet. When Quarantine was released in Leopard, and Gatekeeper in Lion, and System Integrity Protection in El Capitan, and then "Allow from Anywhere" was removed as an option in Sierra... Each time, people were saying similar things. "Yea, it's bad, and it's getting consistently worse with every release, but surely we are nowhere near 'really bad' yet!"
- adastra22 2y ago
  To me these are clear security improvements; things are not getting worse. And there is absolutely no reason to think they'll be dropping support for endusers running their own compiled software.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    The obvious end point would be the same as iOS, which is to say - you can run it to your heart's content, provided that you shell out for a dev certificate.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      That is not at all obvious.
      - IshKebab 2y ago
        It's very obvious if you're paying attention. What is the security benefit of removing the command-click shortcut?
        tpmoney 2y ago
        One argument in favor of removing it (not saying it’s the reason or that they didn’t have other options) is that ctrl-click and open did not obviously do anything different. That is, whether you ctrl-click and open a signed app or an unsigned app, the command in the menu was just “open”, with no indication that you were overriding a security policy. Then the dialog it popped up wasn’t particularly distinct from the “first time run” dialog. There is an argument to be made that going to the security settings and specifically allowing an app is a more clear expression of intent. Kind of in the same way you probably want to open a file you download from the web, but good security practices means the browser doesn’t open it for you on download, you need to explicitly go do it. That said there’s no reason they couldn’t have fixed either of those issues instead

skrrtww 2y ago

> Once you need to be in the apple developer program to build and run from source or something, that’ll be a legitimate nightmare. But we’re nowhere near that yet. This is the case for building and running things with restricted entitlements and system extensions. Unless you disable system integrity protection entirely, which locks you out of your purchased App Store software, DRM content, etc.

adastra22 2y ago
You can no longer disable system integrity protection.
- NotPractical 2y ago
  Source?
  - adastra22 2y ago
    The release notes for Sequoia.
    - sbuk 2y ago
      Nope. Not the enterprise release notes or the security content notes either.
      - adastra22 2y ago
        What I'm referencing is that they removed `spctl --master-disable`. This was referenced in release notes that I read upon upgrading, and testing it on my own system confirms it is gone. Looks like there might be a way of achieving the same thing through the GUI? https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOSBeta/comments/1e2xlcg/disabling_gatekeeper_on_macos_sequoia_beta_3_has/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOSBeta/comments/1e2xlcg/disablin...
        NotPractical 2y ago
        That's Gatekeeper, not System Integrity Protection. You can disable SIP with `csrutil` by rebooting into the macOS recovery environment.
- pcwalton 2y ago
  You can [1]. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/1fh5wez/cant_disable_sip_in_sequoia/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/1fh5wez/cant_di...
dur-randir 2y ago
>which locks you out of your purchased App Store software, DRM content Also false. But Apple's glad you believe in that.
- skrrtww 2y ago
  I was mistaken; I was conflating Permissive Security with SIP. Permissive Security does have those limitations.
- NotPractical 2y ago
  It does lock you out of iOS apps, Apple Pay, and 4K streaming of DRM content [1]. But that's not so bad I suppose. [1] https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/RecordingIndicatorUtility?tab=readme-ov-file#troubleshooting-tips https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/RecordingIndicatorUtili...

ryandrake 2y ago

> Once you need to be in the apple developer program to build and run from source or something, that’ll be a legitimate nightmare. But we’re nowhere near that yet. When Quarantine was released in Leopard, and Gatekeeper in Lion, and System Integrity Protection in El Capitan, and then "Allow from Anywhere" was removed as an option in Sierra... Each time, people were saying similar things. "Yea, it's bad, and it's getting consistently worse with every release, but surely we are nowhere near 'really bad' yet!"

adastra22 2y ago
To me these are clear security improvements; things are not getting worse. And there is absolutely no reason to think they'll be dropping support for endusers running their own compiled software.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The obvious end point would be the same as iOS, which is to say - you can run it to your heart's content, provided that you shell out for a dev certificate.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    That is not at all obvious.
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      It's very obvious if you're paying attention. What is the security benefit of removing the command-click shortcut?
      - tpmoney 2y ago
        One argument in favor of removing it (not saying it’s the reason or that they didn’t have other options) is that ctrl-click and open did not obviously do anything different. That is, whether you ctrl-click and open a signed app or an unsigned app, the command in the menu was just “open”, with no indication that you were overriding a security policy. Then the dialog it popped up wasn’t particularly distinct from the “first time run” dialog. There is an argument to be made that going to the security settings and specifically allowing an app is a more clear expression of intent. Kind of in the same way you probably want to open a file you download from the web, but good security practices means the browser doesn’t open it for you on download, you need to explicitly go do it. That said there’s no reason they couldn’t have fixed either of those issues instead