Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

lapcatsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 182 posts

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#11

Post by dannyw »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #8
rvnx wrote: post #6

It'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 ;)

So why mass-surveil Apple computer users this way? 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…

None of those measures you described counteract mass surveillance.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#13

Post by daneel_w »

trashburger wrote: post #10
londons_explore wrote: post #9

So 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...

Of course, if they say it's for your privacy , it's fine, and everything is all right. We have won the victory over ourselves. We love Apple.

No, they say it's for your security, and we can surmise that's the actual intention in Apple's case, but I definitely understand the privacy concerns that come with this method.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#14

Post by daneel_w »

londons_explore wrote: post #9

So 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...

No, that's not what he's telling you. You're getting ahead of yourself with your question. He's telling us that macOS will consult with Apple regarding the "fingerprint" of an executable when you run it.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#15

Post by daneel_w »

londons_explore wrote: post #7

This must be a blacklist, since it doesn't block my own random scripts which it has never seen before. If 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 i…

Bloom filters are probability-based and come with inaccuracy problems. If you're going to double-check with Apple anyway what does a bloom filter solve compared to the current response caching after querying Apple? How will you protect the locally cached blacklist from being tampered with?

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#16

Post by londons_explore »

daneel_w wrote: post #14
londons_explore wrote: post #9

So 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...

No, that's not what he's telling you. You're getting ahead of yourself with your question. He's telling us that macOS will consult with Apple regarding the "fingerprint" of an executable when you run it.

But the fingerprint of photoshop is the same for everyone. If apple knows what the fingerprint of photoshop is (which they could easily find out), now they have a giant list of who installed photoshop and when, and from which IP address, and which IP location.

That data would be a wet dream for some IP lawyer looking for pirate copies of software...

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#17

Post by jmull »

rvnx wrote: post #6

It'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 ;)

> great tool for mass-surveillance

It’s not really that great for mass-surveillance. It “phone’s home” only on first run. And it doesn’t look like it sends data about your identity, device or location. They can have your IP address but another mechanism would be needed to relate that to you. (I doubt they are logging the IP address anyway. The only purpose would be to surveil you, but if they wanted to do that they would surely use a more capable mechanism . That makes keeping the IP addresses a burden and risk.)

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#18

Post by w-j-w »

daneel_w wrote: post #15
londons_explore wrote: post #7

This must be a blacklist, since it doesn't block my own random scripts which it has never seen before. If 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 i…

Bloom filters are probability-based and come with inaccuracy problems. If you're going to double-check with Apple anyway what does a bloom filter solve compared to the current response caching after querying Apple? How will you protect the locally cached blacklist from being tampered with?

Bloomington filters have probabilistic false positives, making it perfect for blacklisting. A negative means that the program can be run immediately, because it is guaranteed to not be on the list. A positive needs to be double checked, though.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#19

Post by daneel_w »

londons_explore wrote: post #16
daneel_w wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what he's telling you. You're getting ahead of yourself with your question. He's telling us that macOS will consult with Apple regarding the "fingerprint" of an executable when you run it.

But the fingerprint of photoshop is the same for everyone. If apple knows what the fingerprint of photoshop is (which they could easily find out), now they have a giant list of who installed photoshop and when, and from which IP address, and which IP location. That data would be a wet dream for some IP lawyer looking for pirate copies of software...

I understand the privacy concern. We don't know if they store/log anything from the request, or even what it contains in itself besides the "fingerprint". I'm personally certain that Apple is not in cahoots with Big Software to put a squeeze on users in exchange for small money. It's not their business, and it's not something they are required by law to make their business.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#20

Post by JackC »

londons_explore wrote: post #7

This must be a blacklist, since it doesn't block my own random scripts which it has never seen before. If 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 i…

The k-anonymity scheme used by the haveibeenpwned api seems like a good fit here.
Post reply on HN