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

121–130 of 182 posts

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#121

Post by perl4ever »

MintelIE wrote: post #73
FpUser wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "99% of people do everything in a browser these days anyhow." This exaggeration is clearly absurd.

Are you certain about this? I think I was being conservative. It's easy for us tech nerds in our little gadget bubbles to suppose that everybody is like us. But most people are simple browser users, and Office 365 and Google Docs have all but killed off office software on the desktop for many users.

I work in an office that mostly uses Office, but doesn't use the web version for everything. Microsoft never fully implements everything when they make a substitute, so you're always faced with a case-by-case choice as to which one. And the software people use includes things that aren't part of the basic apps, like Project, PowerPoint, Visio, I don't know what else.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#122

Post by ChrisLTD »

fierarul wrote: post #67
lern_too_spel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With issues like this and the 4000 series Ryzen mobile processors, top specced MacBook Pros are very noticably slower than $1k alternatives.

I see the above comment heavily downvoted but I'm specifically looking at 4000 series Ryzen laptops as my 1st move away from MacBook Pros. Such incredible CPUs really make the decision a bit more acceptable. The laptop I'm eyeing is near $1000.

What are you eyeing?

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#124

Post by TheRealPomax »

mthoms wrote: post #86

Does anyone know if adding the Apple domain in question to piHole (or your hosts file pointing to 0.0.0.0) will suppress these checks?

If you're on MacOS, you want Little Snitch installed at all times, even if you have a pihole: a process that is denied network access is far stronger than juping DNS requests.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#125

Post by FpUser »

ajkjk wrote: post #83
FpUser wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "99% of people do everything in a browser these days anyhow." This exaggeration is clearly absurd.

Why do you think so?

The ball is actually not in my court. The original claim 99% should be somehow substantiated. It is not. On a practical note desktop software is being used by countless professionals. There is nearly infinite amount of those tools in countless areas. Amount of small businesses is insane as well and you can hardly find one without some old PC/Laptop running some of their desktop software. None of that would exist if there was no market. 99% claim does not really fit into the picture.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#126

Post by cryptonector »

usmannk wrote: post #30

There is so much confusion here. The OP and most others are missing one of the biggest points: Look at the packet trace. There is _no data_, not even a hash, being sent. It's a TLS negotiation and then the connection ends. I have to suspect it's a bug...

"no data", just a TLS handshake. Of course information can flow! You could put a hash of the executable in a ClientHello extension, and if the server says "i don't know it to be malware" it can finalize the TLS connection normally.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#127

Post by brigandish »

ancarda wrote: post #108
gorgoiler wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vagrant. https://www.vagrantup.com/downloads.html Spin up a Linux box in macOS and ssh into it directly. It is a true joy if you are comfortable working with text files (programming, admin, focused writing, etc.) It will default to using VirtualBox as the underlying virtualization. That works a treat and hides all the GUI madness of VirtualBox. However, if you open up VirtualBox then you can interact with the host yo…

I've never used that before, but it sounds a bit like Docker? As in, it's got a VM in the background and I can interact with it?

The authors of both Vagrant and Docker give answers to Should I use Vagrant or Docker for creating an isolated environment?[1] on StackOverflow.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16647069/should-i-use-va...

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#128

Post by rayiner »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #77
lisper wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a Catalina issue per se, but the big problem with Apple nowadays is: 1. Upgrades are not optional. The system will relentlessly nag me until I upgrade even if I don't want to upgrade. 2. Upgrades are crap shoots. An Apple upgrade nowadays is as likely to break things as it is to fix things. 3. Upgrades are difficult and sometimes impossible to revert. If an upgrade breaks something, I'm just screwed. So I'm still…

Although I sympathize, this is one issue, not three. And hardly anything unique to Apple.

It’s not unique to Apple, but that didn’t used to be the case. I’ve used a Mac for almost 15 years. My previous Macs had issues, no doubt. Got bit by the peeling anti glare issue on my 2013 MBP 15” (after 5+ years of heavy use). But I’ve had maybe two kernel panics in all that time. With my new 16”, I’ve had half a dozen in two weeks. Waking from sleep used to be the basic functionality that “just worked” on Apple machines and where Windows and Linux laptops struggled. That was the benefit you got in return for spending extra on closed hardware platform.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#129

Post by Ductapemaster »

nightowl_games wrote: post #119
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 16” is a huge disappointment. After swearing off Intel PCs after a disaster ours X1 Carbon, I switched back to a 2013 15” until this month. Figured after six months bugs would be ironed out. Wrong. I’m seeing two major glitches that have macrumors threads dozens of pages long: 1) with an external display connected, dGPU utilization shoots up to 20W at idle. (The rest of machine draws well under 10W at idle.) That…

My partner is a graphic designer who loathed her 13" macbook that her work got her. She finally got an upgrade to a 16", i9, 64 gigs of ram. It runs adobe software like total shit. I think it's something to do with Catalina + accessing files in Google Drive File Stream + Adobe. It runs illustrator horribly. It's basically the saddest thing I've ever seen. I think I'll get her a 17" XPS for christmas this year.

For what it's worth, I have _never_ had good luck with "big vendor" software (like Adobe) and using any sort of synced cloud-based filestore. I have had untold issues with things and as soon as I moved files local, everything magically went away. Might try that!

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#130

Post by [deleted] »

usmannk wrote: post #57
_qulr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're seeing, but that's not what I'm seeing. When I Wireshark both app notarization and script notarization, I see 2 packets of encrypted Application Data sent to Apple (567 and 101 bytes), and 1 packet of Application Data (varying length) returned from Apple, in each case. What do you see when you trace a regular app notarization check?

This is odd, my proxy doesn't seem to show this. I will try to load my root cert into Wireshark and check. Edit: Checked and double checked: When I run a new shell script, syspolicyd just makes a connection with no application data

[deleted]
Post reply on HN