Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? That's unbelievably stupid dev behavior, if true.
(but I also don't download Xcode from random places)
51–60 of 101 posts
Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? That's unbelievably stupid dev behavior, if true.
(but I also don't download Xcode from random places)
Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? That's unbelievably stupid dev behavior, if true.
I don't think having Gatekeeper disabled is a very big deal. It's one of the first things I disable on a new Mac. I've never had it stop an actual piece of malware, and it triggers false positives on practically everything. That said, I have no idea why anybody would download XCode from a third party...
Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? That's unbelievably stupid dev behavior, if true.
Disabling gatekeeper is not uncommon, and was really common early on as many applications were not signed yet. Downloading Xcode from a third party, now that's stupid.
Without those local caches the xcode download can sometimes take days or never finish at all.
Downloading from a 3rd party is fine IMO (after all the internet is just a big game of whisper-down-the-lane), but verifying checksums and signatures is incredibly important.
Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? That's unbelievably stupid dev behavior, if true.
If you're living in the land of gray-market computers/software, you'll never have gatekeeper installed to begin with. It's likely that the devs had disabled gatekeeper for other reasons - to run versions of local software also unsigned by Apple for lack of a (paid) Official Apple Developer Account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That said, I have no idea why anybody would download XCode from a third party... Easily explainable really. Went to [their favorite search engine], searched for "Xcode download" and clicked the first result which may not be from Apple (or an advertising).
If you do that, you're too stupid to be a developer, really.
Some news sources said Angry Birds 2 was trojanized, but "only" for the Chinese version. Anyone have any more info on that? Because I didn't think you could have separate binaries per location? Unless it is actually two entirely separate apps? And why would they even have a separate binary for the Chinese market (and why would they use a different build environment?)
It appears that a Chinese company named Kunlun licensed IP from Rovio and is developing Angry Birds apps specifically for the Chinese market. Perhaps they're also distributing the app themselves. http://www.rovio.com/en/news/press-releases/621/rovio-gets-w...
Can you imagine the damage done to Rovio's credibility, simply because their licensee got hit? The news sites only talk about "You should delete Angry Birds 2". Nobody ever mentions or explains this third party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just put a copy elsewhere and surreptitiously edit PATH so that the malicious one gets picked first. No need to delete any files.
Unless the binary is signed properly, that'll trigger the gatekeeper warning, with the the dialog mentioning a cryptically-named binary and the icon showing as a generic "headless program" terminal-looking icon. If that doesn't set off all kinds of red flags you probably deserve infection.
I wonder how Apple could even tell that the apps in question were built with a counterfeit version of Xcode.
Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? That's unbelievably stupid dev behavior, if true.
I see a lot of people saying they disable Gatekeeper on purpose. Is the "right-click and open" trick that disables Gatekeeper for that app generally unknown? Or do people value not being assed to do it more than (potential) security upsides?
What output is expected when you run the command? I get: $ spctl --assess --verbose /Applications/Xcode.app /Applications/Xcode.app: rejected source=obsolete resource envelope I downloaded XCode via the app store, but have disabled gatekeeper (re-enabled it before running this command).