Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:05 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Gatekeeper Already Present in OS X 10.7.3, Available for Developer Testing




With developers needing to prepare for Apple's new Gatekeeper feature in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, Apple has revealed that the functionality is already baked into OS X 10.7.3 but hidden by default. Apple has instructed developers that they can enable Gatekeeper on OS X 10.7.3 from the command line in order to test the functionality.
Quote:
Mac OS X users will soon have the option of turning on Gatekeeper, a new Mac OS X security feature. When a user does this, the system provides an additional measure of safety: it blocks that user from opening newly-downloaded applications that are not Developer ID-signed. In this scenario, the same user is easily able to launch downloaded applications that are Developer ID-signed.

By default, Gatekeeper is not enabled in Mac OS X v10.7.3. For testing purposes, you can turn it on by using the new Mac OS X system policy control command-line tool, spctl(8).
Running the command "sudo spctl --enable" in Terminal will enable Gatekeeper on OS X 10.7.3, and the system can be turned off by replacing "enable" with "disable". With the system enabled, developers can then test how their applications will behave on systems using Gatekeeper.




Warning for non-signed application download with Gatekeeper activated on OS X 10.7.3
Regular users obviously would have little use for activating Gatekeeper on their Lion systems at the present time, as developers have not yet had a chance to begin distributing updated versions of their applications integrating the new Developer-ID functionality. But its inclusion in OS X 10.7.3 is an interesting tidbit that will help developers test their applications with the new program and explains why the new Xcode 4.3 that supports Developer-ID requires OS X 10.7.3.

In another sign of Apple's desire to quickly implement Gatekeeper, Panic's Cabel Sasser notes that Apple contacted select developers last week to invite them to learn more about the feature.

Article Link: Gatekeeper Already Present in OS X 10.7.3, Available for Developer Testing
MacRumors is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:08 PM   #2
GenesisST
macrumors 65816
 
GenesisST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where I live
Wow! MacRumors sure bears its name today!

Me love it!
__________________
Kenmore microwave, Frigidaire oven, Fisher & Paykel fridge, LG washer & Dryer and Crane toilet
GenesisST is offline   17 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:09 PM   #3
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Wait, how is this going to work with open-source stuff that you compile yourself?

Then again, advanced users might not need Gatekeeper. I'd like an option to just have it quickly inform me that it is not signed but open it and not prompt me to allow or disallow it to open.

Last edited by faroZ06; Feb 16, 2012 at 02:14 PM.
faroZ06 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:11 PM   #4
waltermitty
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
This is ridiculous. An obvious money grabbing attempt by making users (by default) go through their App Store to get their software and system updates.
waltermitty is offline   -24 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:11 PM   #5
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
Wait, how is this going to work with open-source stuff that you compile yourself?
You turn off Gate Keeper.

But, the software may not be safe. It may trash your hard disk and steal your girlfriend.
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.
Stella is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:13 PM   #6
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
You turn off Gate Keeper.
So the answer is: it won't work. OK I guess since anyone who touches open-source stuff is probably smart enough to avoid getting malware on a Mac.
faroZ06 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:14 PM   #7
BillyBobBongo
macrumors 68000
 
BillyBobBongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: On The Interweb Thingy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenesisST View Post
Wow! MacRumors sure bears its name today!

Me love it!
Aye, poor Eric is working overtime today!
__________________
"You didn't have a bad experience with tequila, you had an experience with bad tequila!" : crushedagave
Mac Pro: 2.93GHz Quad-Core, iMac 21.5":2.7 GHz Core i5, MacBook Air: 1.8GHz i5
BillyBobBongo is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:15 PM   #8
Storosyan
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
I like the idea. Apple is preparing for the Windows style virus that are slowing starting to arise.
__________________
Macbook Pro 13" IPhone 4 IPod Classic IPad (1st Gen) IPod Touch (4th Gen) AppleTV
Storosyan is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:15 PM   #9
Durendal
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
I figured it would come to this. Apple doesn't need to lock OS X down to App Store only. Savvy users will get around it anyway. Instead, they continuously make it more and more likely that clueless users (the majority of all computer users, Apple or otherwise) won't know the difference. This will only make them scared of anything outside the App Store, which means they won't get anything that isn't in the App Store if they can help it, which means developers of just about anything commercial that isn't already huge (ie, Adobe, Microsoft, etc) will be forced to use the App Store or remain a niche for the savvier users. Way to go, Apple. Steve may be gone, but his spirit lives on.

Sigh...I almost wonder if I should make the move to a good Linux distro. Almost. I'm not there yet, but if Apple continues this trend, I probably will be. It's almost like Apple is TRYING to drive the savvy users away from the platform.
Durendal is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:15 PM   #10
spazzcat
macrumors 68000
 
spazzcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
Wait, how is this going to work with open-source stuff that you compile yourself?

Then again, advanced users might not need Gatekeeper. I'd like an option to just have it quickly inform me that it is not signed but open it and not prompt me to allow or disallow it to open.
It will only prompt you once
spazzcat is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:15 PM   #11
coder12
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fargo, ND: The greatest city on Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
Wait, how is this going to work with open-source stuff that you compile yourself?

Then again, advanced users might not need Gatekeeper. I'd like an option to just have it quickly inform me that it is not signed but open it and not prompt me to allow or disallow it to open.
System Preferences >> "Anything"
__________________
Just plain nuts!
coder12 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:16 PM   #12
benthewraith
macrumors 68030
 
benthewraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Send a message via AIM to benthewraith Send a message via MSN to benthewraith
If you're distributing open source software to consumers, the majority of which don't even know System Preferences exists, how the hell do you expect them to know how to disable Gate Keeper?
benthewraith is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:17 PM   #13
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermitty View Post
This is ridiculous. An obvious money grabbing attempt by making users (by default) go through their App Store to get their software and system updates.
It will also bring more unity to Apple developers and eliminate the problem of malware. Apple just needs to make the App Store tariff-free (except for a fee if you want them to host the file for you).
faroZ06 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:17 PM   #14
basesloaded190
macrumors 68030
 
basesloaded190's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to basesloaded190
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermitty View Post
This is ridiculous. An obvious money grabbing attempt by making users (by default) go through their App Store to get their software and system updates.
It looks really difficult to turn gatekeeper off too
__________________
2011 MacBook Pro 15 HR Anti-Glare, Etymotic ER-4p, iPhone 4 32GB
Twitter
basesloaded190 is offline   15 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:17 PM   #15
spazzcat
macrumors 68000
 
spazzcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durendal View Post
I figured it would come to this. Apple doesn't need to lock OS X down to App Store only. Savvy users will get around it anyway. Instead, they continuously make it more and more likely that clueless users (the majority of all computer users, Apple or otherwise) won't know the difference. This will only make them scared of anything outside the App Store, which means they won't get anything that isn't in the App Store if they can help it, which means developers of just about anything commercial that isn't already huge (ie, Adobe, Microsoft, etc) will be forced to use the App Store or remain a niche for the savvier users. Way to go, Apple. Steve may be gone, but his spirit lives on.

Sigh...I almost wonder if I should make the move to a good Linux distro. Almost. I'm not there yet, but if Apple continues this trend, I probably will be. It's almost like Apple is TRYING to drive the savvy users away from the platform.
Commercial developers will sign their apps. If the app is sign this message will not show up.
spazzcat is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:18 PM   #16
Durendal
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storosyan View Post
I like the idea. Apple is preparing for the Windows style virus that are slowing starting to arise.
Oh baloney. This would only "prevent" install-and-authenticate malware, and if malware for OS X continues to evolve as it has on Windows, you may not need to actually run an installer. Anyone who turns it off won't get any kind of warning and malware continues. Those who leave it on probably won't get anything outside of the App Store, which is the real idea behind this: Scare the newbies into giving more money to Apple.
Durendal is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:19 PM   #17
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by benthewraith View Post
If you're distributing open source software to consumers, the majority of which don't even know System Preferences exists, how the **** do you expect them to know how to disable Gate Keeper?
Consumers don't use open-source software (excluding open-source projects that have native Mac versions)...

Last edited by faroZ06; Feb 16, 2012 at 02:26 PM.
faroZ06 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:19 PM   #18
spazzcat
macrumors 68000
 
spazzcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermitty View Post
This is ridiculous. An obvious money grabbing attempt by making users (by default) go through their App Store to get their software and system updates.
I don't get why you wouldn't buy your app from the app store if its there?
spazzcat is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:19 PM   #19
rnizlek
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
So the answer is: it won't work.
Do you know that, or are you just speculating? You'll need to get a certificate, but who's to say Apple will charge for certificates? And if they do charge, charge a lot? I think it's only in their interest to make development for the platform easy.

I think what makes sense is an option to keep gatekeeper on but allow exceptions on an individual app basis. That way you get the benefit of the protection even without all of your apps being signed.
rnizlek is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:19 PM   #20
Durendal
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazzcat View Post
Commercial developers will sign their apps. If the app is sign this message will not show up.
Not on the strictest setting, and do we know what it will take for this stuff to get signed? I get the feeling it means money, something small-time/open source guys probably won't want to spend.
Durendal is offline   -5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:20 PM   #21
benthewraith
macrumors 68030
 
benthewraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Send a message via AIM to benthewraith Send a message via MSN to benthewraith
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storosyan View Post
I like the idea. Apple is preparing for the Windows style virus that are slowing starting to arise.
You do realize that Apple has malware detection built in now and the log is automatically updated in the background?
benthewraith is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:20 PM   #22
spazzcat
macrumors 68000
 
spazzcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storosyan View Post
I like the idea. Apple is preparing for the Windows style virus that are slowing starting to arise.
Virus =/= malware
spazzcat is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:21 PM   #23
Durendal
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by basesloaded190 View Post
It looks really difficult to turn gatekeeper off too
Newbies are scared to click on anything that isn't a web browser or solitaire, much less toggle anything in the System Preferences.
Durendal is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:21 PM   #24
spazzcat
macrumors 68000
 
spazzcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durendal View Post
Not on the strictest setting, and do we know what it will take for this stuff to get signed? I get the feeling it means money, something small-time/open source guys probably won't want to spend.
You sign it and send out the update to your customers. The only part Apple has in this is they issue the certs.
spazzcat is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 02:21 PM   #25
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durendal View Post
Oh baloney. This would only "prevent" install-and-authenticate malware, and if malware for OS X continues to evolve as it has on Windows, you may not need to actually run an installer. Anyone who turns it off won't get any kind of warning and malware continues. Those who leave it on probably won't get anything outside of the App Store, which is the real idea behind this: Scare the newbies into giving more money to Apple.
UNIX is designed so that you can't have viruses, only malware that relies on the user entering his/her password and allowing it to install. They just need to have it warn you once WITHOUT A POPUP that it is unsigned (instead of a dialog box every single time like in Windows).

"App seems legit, and I don't need Gatekeeper? Hmmm, it warned me that it is unsigned. Now it's asking me for the password. Better check on this."
faroZ06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Testing app on iPhone without Developer account Ryan Burgess iPhone/iPad Programming 5 May 2, 2013 10:42 PM
Overriding Gatekeeper khlsq Mac Applications and Mac App Store 2 Aug 5, 2012 02:38 PM
gatekeeper...when? fisherking OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 16 Jul 30, 2012 12:11 PM
Gatekeeper jrock2004 OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 10 Jul 28, 2012 09:27 PM
Resolved: Gatekeeper not working in 10.8 GM spiderben25 OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 6 Jul 20, 2012 03:28 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC