Live data from Hacker News

Validating Your Version of Xcode

developer.apple.com

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#51
post #8

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 keep gatekeeper disabled because I don't want app developers to have to sign up with (and I believe pay money to) Apple to setup a Developer ID.

(but I also don't download Xcode from random places)

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#52
post #8

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...

If you've had it disabled for a while, you should give it another go. Just about every app is signed now. I think the only one on my machine that isn't at this point is PopcornTime (for obvious reasons).

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#53
post #8

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.

It's getting downloaded from a 3rd party because those 3rd parties are behind the Great Firewall in china.

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.

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#54
post #20
post #8

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.

No need to disable gatekeeper for that. Unsigned software can be run by launching via the right-click menu, which adds an "Open" button to the gatekeeper dialog box, allowing gatekeeper to be bypassed for hat one specific app. OS X will then remember that choice.

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#55
post #23
post #15

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.

Apparently not.

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#56
post #30

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...

Interesting.

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.

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#57
post #7

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 thought Gatekeeper only applies to GUI launched programs?

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#59
post #24
post #8

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?

The right click trick works only if the app is not signed. If the app signature is invalid it won't work. You have to disable gatekeeper completely to open the invalid Xcode version.

Re: Validating Your Version of Xcode

#60
post #28

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).

Which xcode version is this? Maybe you have one from the stone age of "Code Signing V1" (pre-OSX 10.9.5), instead of the current "Code Signing V2"?
Post reply on HN