51–60 of 765 posts
I dont see any problem with this. If you don't feel comfortable doing this then you definitely shouldn't be running random code from the internet. I would take it a step further and force it to be run from the command line. Also, what kind of "viable software business" has trouble paying $100 a year?
Any open source developer? Do you know how much $100 is in Iran?
I'm not sure what the point of that page or posting it here is. This system (and others like it) is neither new nor special. It's also not a bad thing, and I haven't seen anyone come up with a better alternative. Generally you see all major distribution options have signatures with a CA-type trust structure no matter what you use, be it open-source, free or commercial paid software. On Windows, macOS and at least all…
Question for you: what exactly does Notarization protect against? I have watched all the videos about it, I read the developer documentation, I notarize my apps because it is required by the OS…but I still have not gotten a single good explanation as to why it's useful. Apple claims that the process is extremely tolerant…so does it try to accept everything but blatant malware? Does it let malware through? What happen…
It means that it is harder for an attacker to abuse your systems or key material to sign something in your name.
Perhaps the best analogy I can come up with is the dns-01 verification with ACME and a lower TTL. You need to compromise more pieces of the puzzle on a shorter timeline to attack that specific part of the system.
I still believe that Gatekeeper is a blatant cash grab and not a legitimate security feature. $100/year to avoid a scary warning about how your app is definitely a virus? It's like a protection racket.
It absolutely is a cash grab, and part of a series of unethical behaviour from Apple. Since the latest awful hardware products (terrible keyboard, control strip thing that breaks, no escape key) with MacBooks and a great improvement with using Linux via Purism and System76 I've managed to move away from Apple.
I look forward to the day when I can afford a System76 laptop.
This makes me wonder how open source is supposed to work on macOS. People seem to become more and more aware of it and even enterprises that insisted on support contracts can see that they can't get around open source completely anymore. Meanwhile Apple is removing the ability for me to have a pet project without paying an Apple tax. If the message were completely transparent, something like "The developer didn't pay…
Open source projects sign their Apps like anyone else. Works fine. They do the same on Windows of course and on Linux package managers.
A couple other ways to deal with it (at least for some instances--not sure this applies to every kind of executable). 1.1 Hit "Cancel" in the warning dialog. 1.2 Open "System Preferences" / "Security & Privacy" and select the "General" tab. 1.3 It should have a notice about the unverified app being blocked, and offer the chance to approve it. Do so. 1.4 Try to launch the app again. You'll get the dialog again, but th…
That's how Apple protects its 30% cut.
The fact that the standard model of computing is that applications are opaque machine code blobs that can access everything in your user permission space is the core problem in privacy and malware. Applications should see nothing but their executable jail, and whatever was intentionally allowed to them by the user (eg, Open file dialog giving the application an opaque file handle, etc, not carte blanche access to the…
macOS ships with a quite strong and granular capability-based security model with its sandboxing mechanism (at least, when it works and is applied correctly). The feature is there, advanced applications already make use of it, but it is difficult to get arbitrary applications to adopt it (its inner workings are declared SPI after all) and it is not really exposed to the user at all except via App Sandbox, which is fa…
I still believe that Gatekeeper is a blatant cash grab and not a legitimate security feature. $100/year to avoid a scary warning about how your app is definitely a virus? It's like a protection racket.
On a related note, the macOS 11 Beta 5 released today reveals that Apple silicon Macs will require all ARM executables to be signed: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/08/19/apple-silicon-macs-to-req... , https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-note...
From Apple's documentation: > There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker. This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs So, the sky isn't falling yet, but it is reasonable to be conce…
This irks me, I don't know why. Maybe because calling it an Apple policy is something that can be changed. I consider it more a right that I can run arbitrary code on my computer.
So yes, I would agree, quite reasonable to be concerned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source projects sign their Apps like anyone else. Works fine. They do the same on Windows of course and on Linux package managers.
Who pays the apple tax?