Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

Only if you consider a computer, owned by a user, following that user's explicit command to run a piece of software (without further hindrance) "a problem".

It would be nice if the rest of the macOS respected the wishes of the hardware's owner equally.

Re: Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

#5

Post by 1MachineElf » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #4

jtbayly wrote: post #2

TextEdit is a wealth of problems it seems.

Only if you consider a computer, owned by a user, following that user's explicit command to run a piece of software (without further hindrance) "a problem". It would be nice if the rest of the macOS respected the wishes of the hardware's owner equally.

>It would be nice if the rest of the macOS respected the wishes of the hardware's owner equally.

Who the real owner is is going to depend on how Right To Repair initiatives work out.

Re: Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

#6

Post by gumby » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #4

jtbayly wrote: post #2

TextEdit is a wealth of problems it seems.

Only if you consider a computer, owned by a user, following that user's explicit command to run a piece of software (without further hindrance) "a problem". It would be nice if the rest of the macOS respected the wishes of the hardware's owner equally.

Not really. In an attempt to use some DWIM to avoid surprising the user (“Text”Edit supports styled text not just in RTF but HTML) they introduced a bunch of new surprises (opening a seemingly inert text file actually allows code injection). It’s hard to say that this is clearly respecting the “wishes” of the hardware owner (I suppose the hardware owner might have wanted this, as per the article’s example, but surely that is the minority).

They don’t stop the hardware owner from opening the file in an actual text editor such as Emacs or vi.

And you can still download and run anything you like from the net, though by default they add roadblocks anyone can simply move aside. That’s probably the right thing: in my extended household of 9, really there are only two people downloading arbitrary binaries from the net and running them. And neither of us disables gatekeeper.

Re: Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

#7

Post by ryandrake » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

This is a neat hack, but is there a practical use case here for everyday software developers? I sincerely hope that even novice users have better sense than to download a text file from a web site, find a sketchy ZIP file inside the text file, and then follow directions in the text file. It's like downloading a movie from a sketchy web site and in the package you see a RunMe.exe file. The whole thing reeks of red flags that should tell even moderately sophisticated users "This is malware".

Re: Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

#8

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #4

jtbayly wrote: post #2

TextEdit is a wealth of problems it seems.

Only if you consider a computer, owned by a user, following that user's explicit command to run a piece of software (without further hindrance) "a problem". It would be nice if the rest of the macOS respected the wishes of the hardware's owner equally.

It does, the hardware owner merely has to tell macOS what it wants. Open a Terminal and type:

    sudo spctl —-master-disable

And you’ll be able to run as many unnotarized apps as you wish, just by double clicking them.

However, if the hardware owner wants to disallow unnotarized software, macOS should enforce that policy.

Re: Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

#9

Post by soulofmischief » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #7

This is a neat hack, but is there a practical use case here for everyday software developers? I sincerely hope that even novice users have better sense than to download a text file from a web site, find a sketchy ZIP file inside the text file, and then follow directions in the text file. It's like downloading a movie from a sketchy web site and in the package you see a RunMe.exe file. The whole thing reeks of red fla…

I don't know about you, but I've been embedding data into images and sharing them for nearly 20 years. My target audience knows how to correctly consume these files.

Don't coddle the user.

Re: Distributing unnotarized Mac apps in a text file

#10

Post by wpm » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #8

sneak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you consider a computer, owned by a user, following that user's explicit command to run a piece of software (without further hindrance) "a problem". It would be nice if the rest of the macOS respected the wishes of the hardware's owner equally.

It does, the hardware owner merely has to tell macOS what it wants. Open a Terminal and type: sudo spctl —-master-disable And you’ll be able to run as many unnotarized apps as you wish, just by double clicking them. However, if the hardware owner wants to disallow unnotarized software, macOS should enforce that policy.

Technically you have to reboot into Recovery to run this command.