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

81–90 of 182 posts

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#81

Post by mthoms »

digitaltrees wrote: post #50
mokus wrote: post #24

I guess the list of things keeping me off catalina (and, by extension, new Mac hardware) just got one item longer. I recently bought a new System76 laptop as a stopgap, but it might end up becoming permanent. Kind of a sad end for 25+ years of Mac use.

What are the other problems with Catalina for you? I ask because every time there is an OS X update someone posts this exact sentiment but then over a few months the issues get resolved. Please don’t interpret this as an attack; I am genuinely curious and want to see if Apple ends up fixing things. I my self have a maxed out 16 MacBook Pro and a for the first few weeks after the upgrade it was literally in usable bec…

I'm in a similar boat. The first few weeks with my 16" MBP was pretty bad. Everything seems resolved now, except the issue with the discreet GPU kicking in when an external monitor is plugged in. This, in turn causes the fans to spin up (which is annoying when trying to code).

My 2017 13" MBP (without discreet GPU) was barely usable when powering my 4K monitor but at least it was quiet. It makes me think that the more modern integrated Intel GPU in the 16" should be enough to power my monitor without fan noise. Sadly, Apple has decided I can't have that option.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#82

Post by jeremyjh »

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.

> Office 365 and Google Docs have all but killed off office software on the desktop for many users.

That hasn't been my experience at all. While those tools are definitely used - especially for collaboration - most people on my company's Office 365 subscription are downloading and using the full products for their daily work. This is true in both very large companies and the (non-tech) startup I work at now.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#83

Post by ajkjk »

FpUser wrote: post #72
MintelIE wrote: post #62

Why don't companies come out and tell people what they're doing these days? Telemetry is getting to the point where people such as doctors and lawyers might be violating the law by using a modern computer. And people in the defense industry? Doesn't Apple employ thousands of forns? Who's audited their datasystems and ensured that this stuff stays private? Much easier and better to just stop using it all and move to a…

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

Why do you think so?

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#84

Post by nojito »

MintelIE wrote: post #62

Why don't companies come out and tell people what they're doing these days? Telemetry is getting to the point where people such as doctors and lawyers might be violating the law by using a modern computer. And people in the defense industry? Doesn't Apple employ thousands of forns? Who's audited their datasystems and ensured that this stuff stays private? Much easier and better to just stop using it all and move to a…

"Telmetry" has been co-opted by the tin foil hat wearing privacy keyboard warriors.

It's akin to the people spending tens of thousands of dollars on disaster prep.

The only people who lose are the end-users of software. Who are forced to use crappy software.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#85

Post by kgraves »

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.

> 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.

In reality, I see most people use desktop software instead of the browser (without using the internet in some cases) to do their work. (Think CAD, Adobe, DAW software, Excel, video production software) even on mobile/tablets Office can be used where no internet connection is available.

I seriously doubt that users would spend all their time in a browser window other than for consumption purposes like social media and video sites. The idea of 99% of people doing everything in the browser seems questionable to me and some data about this would be helpful here.

Apart from the computer science department, I also doubt that people would find it easier to go to Linux, BSD or the other galaxy of distros.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#87

Post by abathur »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #74

I can't reproduce the exact test specified in the article: $ echo $'#!/bin/sh\necho Hello' > /tmp/test.sh && chmod a+x /tmp/test.sh $ time /tmp/test.sh && time /tmp/test.sh Hello real 0m0.016s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.010s Hello real 0m0.006s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.004s I don't believe the 0.01s difference is long enough, and could easily explained by filesystem caching. The article says: > Some people try to explain awa…

A few ideas:

1. confirm the checks are enabled:

    spctl --status
2. Make sure your terminal/shell/etc aren't already exempted System Preferences > Security & Privacy > Developer Tools.

3. If you already ran something that could generate a check in the last minute, the connection is still open. Most of the overhead people are recording is negotiation/handshake. If you're fairly close to the server, it seems plausible your observed time could be enough for the communication minus the negotiation. You can open Console.app and search `process:syspolicyd` in the device log to see the entries for the negotiation; wait for it to terminate.

4. Try removing and re-creating a new file as in the test you did before and check it a little more directly:

    spctl --assess -v --ignore-cache --no-cache /tmp/test.sh
If it's working, you should see a log entry with the text "summary for task success" in it with a detailed breakdown of the request (times taken per phase, bytes sent/received, etc).

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#88

Post by _qulr »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #74

I can't reproduce the exact test specified in the article: $ echo $'#!/bin/sh\necho Hello' > /tmp/test.sh && chmod a+x /tmp/test.sh $ time /tmp/test.sh && time /tmp/test.sh Hello real 0m0.016s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.010s Hello real 0m0.006s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.004s I don't believe the 0.01s difference is long enough, and could easily explained by filesystem caching. The article says: > Some people try to explain awa…

There's no such "filesystem caching" phenomenon on macOS Mojave and earlier, so that theory falls apart rather quickly. There's also the consistent difference between timing results with internet connection enabled vs disabled.

I'm not sure why you couldn't reproduce the delay. There are several possibilities I can imagine, but these could only be proved or disproved by more testing. In any case, many people have reproduced the delay, on close to "factory default" Mac installs.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#89

Post by MintelIE »

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?

It appears as if OS X will revert to using an IP address if a domain lookup fails according to the thread we had on this issue yesterday.

Re: Catalina is checking notarization of unsigned executables

#90

Post by knolan »

msie wrote: post #64
digitaltrees wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the other problems with Catalina for you? I ask because every time there is an OS X update someone posts this exact sentiment but then over a few months the issues get resolved. Please don’t interpret this as an attack; I am genuinely curious and want to see if Apple ends up fixing things. I my self have a maxed out 16 MacBook Pro and a for the first few weeks after the upgrade it was literally in usable bec…

I installed Catalina on my iMac several days ago and ImageCapture still has bugs! Although I can now select multiple photos to import from my iPhone 11, ImageCapture will not delete the photos after import. Previous to that, ImageCapture on Catalina would not import more than 10 photos without reporting an error. At least they fixed that bug.

I’m curious, is there a reason to use image capture when you can just AirDrop the images? Does Image Capture give you the HEIC format file or something?
Post reply on HN