Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

N10248

macrumors 6502a
Jun 11, 2004
637
129
Essex, U.K.
Yay more downloading for me...

woops.jpg
 

tennisproha

macrumors 68000
Jun 24, 2011
1,584
1,085
Texas
Apple screwed up big time here, I'm sure we all remember. Essentially though, the certification system is what's broken here.
really annoying though I find is, that the plain simple user is no more the authority over his own system.

A user should always be able to override what a system thinks is its best intent. Even if it's the wrong decision, even if I have to deal with catastrophic consequences: I (and no one else) should be able to decide, what's happening on my system. I can live with my computer misbehaving and me having to carry the consequences. but I can not live with the fact, that I no longer am in control. Admittedly, not even Microsoft gets this nowadays. at least not to the level I used to.
We all have very little control over our lives, much less than we actually realize or admit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: You are the One

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
8,819
6,986
Perth, Western Australia
This is really unreliable annoying, silly, ... if this would be Windows we would all be lying on the floor laughing, ...

Recent versions of Windows do code-signing too.

in fact just recently, Microsoft had a certificate SNAFU that was far worse:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/serv...-ca-audit-data-from-its-partners-501357.shtml

Essentially they lost the audit trail for a bunch of root certificates. Because they're a root CA they threatened via automated script to remove everybody's certificates. Because they had a system failure, lost data and didn't have a recent enough backup.

What Apple did is standard operating procedure. What Microsoft just did most certainly is not.

It would be nice if they provided a process for the end user to re-sign the installers, but that would mean anyone could tamper with them and re-sign them as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: You are the One

tywebb13

macrumors 68030
Apr 21, 2012
2,944
1,632
This unfortunately is the final nail in the coffin for bootable dvd installers. Although apple dropped this with lion, it has been possible to make them since then. But they too will be inflicted by this problem. It will of course be possible to circumvent the problem with the date trick. But you shouldn't have to.

The main advantage bootable usbs have had over dvds is that they boot much faster.

But there is another advantage. The bootable usbs can be updated and the dvds can't. If you want dvds you will have to burn new ones.

I've now made 5 new bootable usbs for the systems that now require it. That was painful - but manageable.

But I REALLY hate having to recreate the dvds. Not sure I can contain my rage on that one. This may well be the last time I make them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReneR

gring40

macrumors newbie
May 16, 2015
3
2
IL
That worked, and thanks so much for the tip. I'd prepared a flash drive to reload OSX on a new drive, got the error message, ran Terminal and entered the date command, and I was good to go. ☺️
 

ReneR

macrumors 6502
Jun 18, 2008
342
346
Berlin, Germany
Recent versions of Windows do code-signing too.

in fact just recently, Microsoft had a certificate SNAFU that was far worse:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/serv...-ca-audit-data-from-its-partners-501357.shtml

Essentially they lost the audit trail for a bunch of root certificates. Because they're a root CA they threatened via automated script to remove everybody's certificates. Because they had a system failure, lost data and didn't have a recent enough backup.

What Apple did is standard operating procedure. What Microsoft just did most certainly is not.

It would be nice if they provided a process for the end user to re-sign the installers, but that would mean anyone could tamper with them and re-sign them as well.

Well, if I want to install an backed up OS copy and can't this is simply ****ed up.

I could infinitely reinstalled Mac OS X 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 (just did last year on my upgraded Cube (1.2 GHz CPU and SSD, Radeon graphics ...) 10.6 etc. pp. And now just due to some stupid certificate expiration we need to download tons of GB again, which usually do not load on new Macs anymore. And who guarantees that you can reload an older release in a year or five? And why is there no "certificate warning box" to review the details and dismiss in case of - like for SSL certs in the browser?

Well done and sophisticated UI and software design is something else, …
[doublepost=1457292243][/doublepost]
Why the heck can't they set these certificates to expire far enough into the future that this will never be a problem?

Just set them to expire Dec 31 2099 or something. You can work around them by setting the date back anyway, so it's not like this effectively prevents installs. It's just annoying.

And then a museum wants to restore it on an exhibition piece? Thanks god it appears you can tweak the date to work around it for now ;-/ !
 

kyte

macrumors member
Jan 15, 2008
34
17
Newcastle, AU
Infuriating. I don't mind having a more secure system, its why I moved to OSX from Windows years ago. But seriously... like everyone else says... this is MY computer, and I should be able to download whichever OS I want. I just want to store the damn things so it does not matter one whit whether its currently compatible. Just makes me want to downgrade all the way to Snow Leopard (which is what my Macs came with). *GRUMBLE*
 

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
8,819
6,986
Perth, Western Australia
Infuriating. I don't mind having a more secure system, its why I moved to OSX from Windows years ago. But seriously... like everyone else says... this is MY computer, and I should be able to download whichever OS I want. I just want to store the damn things so it does not matter one whit whether its currently compatible. Just makes me want to downgrade all the way to Snow Leopard (which is what my Macs came with). *GRUMBLE*

Unfortunately the last 30-40 years of computing has proven that letting people run anything doesn't work. Because no computer user is in a position to audit the code they run before they run it to verify it is authentic, every single time they run it.

The PC world allows for third party certificates to be used by installing your own certificates into the EFI/BIOS. Perhaps this is something apple should consider.

But the number of users this affects is relatively small, and it opens up a potential problem where malware could potentially install its own certificate into the EFI, or trick the user into doing so.

So unfortunately, this is a cost of having a secure platform these days - because the average user doesn't understand how to verify software and even those who do simply do not have the time to do so every time they execute something.
 

8692574

Suspended
Mar 18, 2006
1,244
1,926
It's the new designed obsolescence.
Fortunately you can set the date back on computers... For now.
Are you saying that they are smart enought to create a new designed obsolescence but dumb enought to allow you can set the date back on computers?
 

8692574

Suspended
Mar 18, 2006
1,244
1,926
You can also download an updated signed copy of the software.
I know I was pointing out that if they really wanted to create a planned obsolescence the first thing they would have looked at would be not allowing to set the date back...

Of course they wouldn't have relased update installers either....
 

Guy Clark

Suspended
Nov 28, 2013
1,036
1,008
London United Kingdom.
This actually makes perfect sense. An up to date USB installer requires a minimal amount of updates post installation. An installer is easy to create. DiskMaker X takes the hard work out of it and v.5 is compatible with El Capitan. I've now updated USB installers for OS X Mavericks, Yosemite and El Capitan with this useful tool
http://diskmakerx.com
[doublepost=1457341156][/doublepost]
Yay more downloading for me...

woops.jpg
A veritable treasure trove of OS X releases. I only have images going back to OS X 10.5 Leopard. You never know when those old images may come in useful. One thing that is glaringly obvious is how much the OS X images have grown in size. OS X Tiger 2.74 GB to OS X Leopard the following release 7.63 GB. A massive bump.

21.5" mid 2011 iMac running OS X El Capitan and Snow Leopard.
[doublepost=1457341438][/doublepost]
Wow! How do you run 10.0-10.5? Virtual machines?
OS X Leopard Server and OS X Snow Leopard Server will run in a virtual environment on Parallels Desktop 11
http://kb.parallels.com/en/123276

Wish I could find a way to run OS X Tiger in a virtual environment.
 

s0nicpr0s

macrumors regular
Sep 1, 2010
230
47
Illinois
I haven't tried it but after right-clicking on the installer to show package contents and drilling down to the ESD file. Would the ESD file installer bypass the certificate? Just wondering.
I haven't verified this since I came across this. But the older installers I've created from the ESD files did seem to work on the last machine I restored Yosemite onto (2 weeks back). The USB I tried creating at the end of February however wouldn't work at all. Had to dig out the older ones I made last year. The one's I had attempted recently I tried building by hand with the terminal, and through DiskMaker X 5. It would complete building, but would refuse to install.

Changing the date of the machine may allow the post-expiration built installers to work.
 

Ebenezum

macrumors 6502a
Mar 31, 2015
782
260
This actually makes perfect sense. An up to date USB installer requires a minimal amount of updates post installation. An installer is easy to create. DiskMaker X takes the hard work out of it and v.5 is compatible with El Capitan. I've now updated USB installers for OS X Mavericks, Yosemite and El Capitan with this useful tool
http://diskmakerx.com

That works in theory. In practice downloading installers every time Apple screws up with certificates isn't practical because not everyone has a fast internet. And even with relatively fast broadband downloading installers and updating installer media takes a long time.

I hope Apple finally wakes up and creates a GUI option to create installer like DiskMaker X does. Memory stick is much faster and reliable than relying on internet recovery if one needs to reinstall OS X.
 

ActionableMango

macrumors G3
Sep 21, 2010
9,612
6,907
I checked my App Store on my cMP and all the OSX versions since Lion are there, but Yosemite and Mavericks say "Downloaded" and are not clickable. Even the names themselves are not clickable.

Only the re-download is disabled ! I can see them in the list of purchases (Lion, Mavericks, Yosemite and ElCap) but I can only download ElCapitan - all the others are disabled (greyed out). Any suggestions ?

In my experience this means you did download it, and you have a local copy somewhere. I believe the default location is Applications (not Downloads). But it could be anywhere, so use Spotlight to find it and delete it. Then the download links are no longer greyed out and you can get a fresh copy.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.