Live data from Hacker News

Can't you just right click?

lapcatsoftware.com

251–260 of 765 posts

Re: Can't you just right click?

#251
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, your friendly scammer could also publish checksums on their website. It is clear to you that you're writing fine open source software, not malware. But how is the consumer supposed to tell? If people trust you, why bother with the checksums? (Over HTTPS, the downloaded content cannot be tampered with. If someone tampered with the content on your website, or performs a MITM, they can also replace the che…

The checksums are there if they happen to grab the binary in some way that is not "using HTTPS directly from my website" and they'd like to check. Why do the know I'm not writing malware? Trust in my software, mostly? It is unclear that notarization actually stops malware–Apple has failed to explain how it helps, but enforces it by decree.

Pretty easy to figure out what's going on:

1. You submit your app bundle and your credentials to Apple for notarization.

2. Apple records your information and goes through each library, framework, and your code, checking the code signing info and "fingerprint" of each for known malware.

3. Apple issues the ticket for stapling to the app bundle.

Now say, for example, that libffmpeg-0.1.2-beta2.dylib is found to mine cryptocurrency:

1. Apple goes through their database and finds the app where the malware was reported.

2. Apple marks that fingerprint as malicious.

3. Apple now flags any other apps that use libffmpeg-0.1.2-beta2.dylib (by checking the fingerprint) and disables any versions of any app running that version. Additionally, any other attempts to notarize apps with the malicious dylib are rejected.

Notarization provides 2 major benefits for devs that I can see:

1. Apple doesn't need to revoke your entire certificate just to block one version of an app.

2. Apple's audit trail of who notarized the app (and from where) prevents cases where stolen credentials result in a DoS of the victim (e.g. your account being locked, your name and address permabanned, and funds frozen).

Re: Can't you just right click?

#252
post #237
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't say that. It says that it can't verify the developer, and can't verify that the software is free of malware. It's just some arbitrary piece of software, could be written by anyone, and/or could be software that purports to be Word or Photoshop or whatever, but has been modified. Granted, you could quibble with the details (does pointing out that you can't verify that it's free from malware imply that you c…

It doesn't seem like they verify every app to ensure it is free from malware. Since they respond in the affirmative if they app is signed (by not warning), it seems reasonable for a lay person to believe that an app that doesn't throw this warning is free of malware.

"The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly."

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...

Re: Can't you just right click?

#253
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows 10 also does it's best to try and stop users from running unsigned code, by making the UI complicated. When Windows 10 finds an unsigned installer it shows a dialog with a Don't Run button and as the name suggest clicking that button does not run the installer. To run the installer the user needs to first click on the More Info link which will then present the user with an option to Run the installer. Here's…

Windows signing isn't centrally managed through Microsoft, which is an important distinction I think.

IIRC, the CAs Windows trusts charge absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, unless something has changed recently.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#254
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The certificate is only checked on initial load. If the application gets changed afterwards then it will still load. It is not an integrity check. More details here: https://eclecticlight.co/2019/07/09/understanding-signature-...

This cascade of comments is missing the point. It's like someone is pointing out the darker shade of clouds at the horizon and saying, "I think a storm is coming," and everyone here is just going, "Well, it could also be nightfall. I mean, the night has to roll on in at some point too." Yes, it's just an initial check. But is it necessary? What exactly is the use case basis for Apple transmitting and logging data on…

The use case is checking for malware.

macOS is, in fact, susceptible to malware. (A notable example hit HN just the other day [1].) I don't think Apple has ever literally claimed that it isn't susceptible, though they may have sort of hinted at it (especially at the height of the "Get a Mac" campaign). To be fair, there has not been very much macOS malware then or now, though it's questionable how much that has to do with macOS's design as opposed to factors like the size of the target userbase.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24167217

Re: Can't you just right click?

#255

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…

That should probably be an option, but I'll take ownership of my hardware and data not you or Apple. I don't mind having the checks in there as long as I can overrule them. Otherwise you just get the Epic treatment and you don't really own your hardware, you're just loaning it from Apple and you can only do what they let you do. That, to me, is a losing proposition in the long haul.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also can't imagine $100 is easy to come up with in countries below level 4[1]. While money for a Mac is?

You don't need a Mac to develop software for macOS.

Don't you? A few years ago I wanted to figure out how to cross-compile into macOS without ever actually using macOS. Is that possible now?

Re: Can't you just right click?

#257
> Can you distribute Mac software over the internet without signing it, thereby avoiding Developer ID and notarization entirely? Technically, currently, yes, although Apple has indicated that a future version of macOS may not allow unsigned code to run at all.

To my knowledge, this depends on what APIs you wanna use. Using certain capabilities like Network Extensions (the on-device low-level networking APIs) requires paying $99/year for the Apple Developer Program. See https://developer.apple.com/support/app-capabilities/ for more details.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#258

This feature is at about the right spot for me. It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.

I kind of agree. I think the right click option is actually kind of genius since it gives people who somewhat know what they're doing a very easy to way to open unsigned software, while protecting people who don't know what's going on on their computers.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#259
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the parent, but: How does a certificate let "macOS verify the app is free from malware"?

If the signed software is notarized, and the signature checks out, then you can be sure that Apple did some malware-scan-like process to the app on their server at some point(1) and that the app you’re seeing is the same one they saw. (1) and probably a manual review if the App under analysis was found to call into any but a whitelist of “safe” system APIs. Without the code signing, you can’t be sure that the app you…

https://malware.news/t/sparkling-payloads/41968

Re: Can't you just right click?

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try using safari on a MacBook. Last time I spent 10 minutes on my wife's laptop, every website was filled with garbage ads saying your Mac is infected with a virus you must download an anti virus quick (#malware). The shadier websites (streaming) sent a dmg executable as soon as they were opened. It's shocking, it's worse than Windows (sad fact: Mac has more malware/adware than Windows since the last 3 years). Of cou…

> Safari removed support for extensions last year, dropping all adblockers Safari has ad-blockers. It also has extensions. Just google it.

Safari's ad-blockers are not really comparable[0] to what's currently possible on Firefox, Chrome, or other Chromium-based browsers.

They rely on declarative blocking and/or system-wide interception (ie, you run them as an entirely separate app outside of Safari). The majority of them are not going to be able to handle things like CNAME unmasking or page source rewrites[1]. The declarative blocking API in Safari isn't built to support those kinds of features.

[0] https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

[1] The exception to this being maybe AdGuard when you run it system-wide? I vaguely remember reading that it sets itself as a MITM for all of your web traffic at an OS level, which allows it to do page-source rewrites. I could be wrong about that though.

Post reply on HN