4 ms·

People complain that OS X requires apps to be signed by Apple (by default). But in reality, it's the sanest solution to this problem. When the OS enforces sig

by m0dest 13y ago

People complain that OS X requires apps to be signed by Apple (by default). But in reality, it's the sanest solution to this problem. When the OS enforces signature checking, you don't have to worry about whether it was downloaded over HTTP or who owned the domain name.

dylz 13y ago
It doesn't care who the developer is though, which is an issue. As long as there's a valid signature, the application runs. (btw, if you don't want to enable "allow all apps" on OSX, just rightclick (two finger click) and pick "open" from the context menu. it'll prompt for launch as opposed to just "no.")
davexunit 13y ago
> But in reality, it's the sanest solution to this problem. Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. You have to place all of your trust in Apple that the binary you're running is actually build from the source code it is supposed to be. Now, over in the free digital world, this problem is being addressed sanely. For example, NixOS and GNU Guix are tackling the issues of reproducible builds and package signing that can use a distributed web of trust. This way, no one has to trust a single company/entity or build machine. Debian is also after reproducible builds.
- dfc 13y ago
  This is a big thing for the Tor project: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-one-cyberwar-and-global-compromise https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-o... https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-two-technical-details https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-t...
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  Sanest if you already trust Apple with root, which if you are using an Apple computer, you do.
- Zarel 13y ago
  > Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. Well, yes, but your OS vendor is already in total control over its users' software. The only difference this makes is that you don't have to trust anyone else.
api 13y ago
The sanest solution to the problem is for OSes to fix their permission models and realize that app isolation is as important as -- or more important than -- user isolation. Easier said than done, of course.
mikeash 13y ago
I wouldn't care about OS X doing that if iOS didn't eliminate that "by default". It frightens me that Apple might someday eliminate it on OS X too. These controls are a great idea as long as the user has ultimate control. Apple does not seem committed to the idea of letting the user have control.

by m0dest 13y ago

dylz 13y ago

It doesn't care who the developer is though, which is an issue. As long as there's a valid signature, the application runs. (btw, if you don't want to enable "allow all apps" on OSX, just rightclick (two finger click) and pick "open" from the context menu. it'll prompt for launch as opposed to just "no.")

davexunit 13y ago

> But in reality, it's the sanest solution to this problem. Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. You have to place all of your trust in Apple that the binary you're running is actually build from the source code it is supposed to be. Now, over in the free digital world, this problem is being addressed sanely. For example, NixOS and GNU Guix are tackling the issues of reproducible builds and package signing that can use a distributed web of trust. This way, no one has to trust a single company/entity or build machine. Debian is also after reproducible builds.

dfc 13y ago
This is a big thing for the Tor project: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-one-cyberwar-and-global-compromise https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-o... https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-two-technical-details https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-t...
3pt14159 13y ago
Sanest if you already trust Apple with root, which if you are using an Apple computer, you do.
Zarel 13y ago
> Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. Well, yes, but your OS vendor is already in total control over its users' software. The only difference this makes is that you don't have to trust anyone else.

api 13y ago

The sanest solution to the problem is for OSes to fix their permission models and realize that app isolation is as important as -- or more important than -- user isolation. Easier said than done, of course.

mikeash 13y ago

I wouldn't care about OS X doing that if iOS didn't eliminate that "by default". It frightens me that Apple might someday eliminate it on OS X too. These controls are a great idea as long as the user has ultimate control. Apple does not seem committed to the idea of letting the user have control.