Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
lapcatsoftware.com
Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
1–10 of 182 posts
Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#2Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#3The article mentioned at the beginning is already discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23273247
Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#4Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#5Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#6For your security ;)
Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#7If it's a global blacklist on apple servers, it should instead be downloaded to the client, and be a local blacklist.
Too big? Use a bloom filter. Now you only end up keeping less than one byte per blacklisted item. Update the bloom filter with an autoupdater. Any positive hit you can check against the server just incase it's a false positive.
Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#8It's great tool for mass-surveillance. Since Apple has a database of all the apps the user has run on their device (but no worries, Google has the same). For your security ;)
My understanding is the only thing exclusive to Apple systems is developing Apple apps. But anything related on a platform like iOS is already going to be public knowledge.
Also the latest Mac hardware seems to go through great pains to make sure the primary storage device is both encrypted, unrecoverable if keys are unknown (T2 security chip), and non-removable (SSD soldered to board). So why would they make this back door for surveillance?
Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#9Sounds very Orwellian for a privacy focussed company...
Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables
#10So you're telling me that every time I install a program in OSX, it pings apple to let them know what program I'm installing, my IP address, my location, and my OS version? Sounds very Orwellian for a privacy focussed company...