Apple Again Encouraging Mac Developers to Sign Up for Developer ID Ahead of OS X Mountain Lion

[coolfactor]

Nope. You are either missing the point, or simply spinning the Apple talking points.

It is in fact very likely that Gatekeeper is another step in creating an iOS walled garden on our desktops, where only apps approved by Apple will be allowed on our "stock" Macs.

And this is NOT a good thing.

I actually jumped to Android precisely because I got tired of jailbreaking my iPhones so that I can tether, or use them on TMobile (once I realized how much better/cheaper it is than AT&T).

I've been enjoying tethering on my iPhone in Canada for a long time. No jailbreaking required. Your example is a poor one because it has nothing to do with a walled software garden, but is a licensing issue with carriers. Same as your choice to use a different carrier.

Certified apps ARE a good thing, but you've found reasons to see it otherwise based on your own usage. Don't confuse it with being a bad thing for the general population, though.

 

[pdjudd]

PS : Feel free to post a link to where Apple provide a cast iron guarantee about this not happening.

I never said anything about a cast iron guarantee. I nearly stated that they have said several times that the MAS is not going to be the only method to get apps. And really, in real life there is no cast iron guarantee. Apple can promise whatever they want and violate it tomorrow. I just know that they aren’t that dumb to do that in this instance.

 

[coolfactor]

There is the potential that the government could see this as a system by which it can force Apple to block infringing applications. Say, a game console emulator or a program that allows one to search for torrents.

As far as I understand, you'll still be able to obtain and install Mac apps from any source, but you'll be taking possible risks in doing so. The introduction of Gatekeeper is to provide a safe and reliable way of ensuring the risks are lowered for the general user base. Apple would only be able to block signed applications, so that means they would need to be approved in the first place. What is your thinking of Apple first approving a game console emulation and then revoking access based on pressure from the government? I doubt that would happen. Gatekeeper is meant to protect against malicious applications, and nothing else. Anything else would be abuse on Apple's part. Time will tell.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think you totally missed my point.

"I hope" ...meaning a future change in policy that I anticipate/desire.

"anticipate" is the problem. This isn't for the App Store. It indicates nothing about potential changes of app store policies.

This is for side loaded applications. Unless you hope that somehow, Gatekeeper for iOS would allow sideloading of signed apps on iOS, this isn't the hope you're looking for.

That was my point.

 

[pdjudd]

Unless you hope that somehow, Gatekeeper for iOS would allow sideloading of signed apps on iOS, this isn't the hope you're looking for.

I think that is exactly what Small White Car was going for.

 

[Swift]

Image

What I thought of when I saw that graphic...

Not much connection between the products. Security Essentials scans your disk for malware. Signing apps makes it harder for the malware to get there in the first place.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think that is exactly what Small White Car was going for.

Then I pretty much got his point, tyvm for assuming I didn't.

And again, this has nothing to do with that. App store apps have always been signed, MAS or iOS ones. If Apple had really intended for users to side load signed iOS apps, they didn't even need Gate keeper for that or this signing program.

 

[inkswamp]

Except in the Apple logo they've left a gate open

It's a trap. The portcullis is spring-loaded.

 

[Tinyluph]

Not much connection between the products. Security Essentials scans your disk for malware. Signing apps makes it harder for the malware to get there in the first place.

I guess it's a good thing I was drawing comparisons between the products' branding and not their functionality?

So confused by all of these quotes.

 

[pdjudd]

If Apple had really intended for users to side load signed iOS apps, they didn't even need Gate keeper for that or this signing program.

I agree 100%. If Apple really wanted users to side load apps on their iPhone, they would have enabled that from day one. They didn’t and I don’t think it had anything to do with a lack of Gatekeeper. They wanted the iPhone to be far more closed and controlled environment. And to some degree it makes sense since the two platforms are so different. That’s why comparing this with the locked down iOS is silly - iOS has always been locked down. The Mac Platform never has even though the OS has been redesigned several times (Pre MacOS, up to 9.0, and OSX). Apple knows that they can’t practically lock down the MacOS like they did with iOS and I don’t think they want to. They see iOS and MacOS as complimentary to each other where one can pick up on the other, but they are not and will not be the same in many, many fundamental ways.

 

[drblank]

Gatekeeper

I am wondering if the Flashback malware would have been prevented if this new Gatekeeper feature was enabled. I am wondering how effective this additional feature is going to prevent certain types of attacks. Well, I think it is 100% impossible to prevent malicious things happening, but certain types of attacks are preventable.

 

[pdjudd]

I am wondering if the Flashback malware would have been prevented if this new Gatekeeper feature was enabled. I am wondering how effective this additional feature is going to prevent certain types of attacks. Well, I think it is 100% impossible to prevent malicious things happening, but certain types of attacks are preventable.

I doubt that Gatekeeper could stop Flashback - that was related to Javascript and thats an entire framework system. It was an external threat that affected a vulnerability in a framework. The installer for Javascript could have been signed by the Pope - it’s still vulnerable and that’s what was the problem.

 

[kiljoy616]

How is this no more than something to stop the scared children form having a mental break.

How would this help in a Java specific problem? Someone explain. Oh and how will this work with torrent downloads

 

[faroZ06]

This is the walled castle with a moat and a drawbridge, approach.

Step away from the computer. The tribunal has deemed your coding to sub-par and sloppy. We are going to have to revoke your keys.

I'd rather just have a nice area where there are no bad coders. If I really need an app for something and don't care if it sucks, I can ignore Gatekeeper and use it anyway.

 

[jonnysods]

Weird. I got this but I'm not a Mac developer, just an iOS one.

 

[chrmjenkins]

As far as I understand, you'll still be able to obtain and install Mac apps from any source, but you'll be taking possible risks in doing so. The introduction of Gatekeeper is to provide a safe and reliable way of ensuring the risks are lowered for the general user base. Apple would only be able to block signed applications, so that means they would need to be approved in the first place. What is your thinking of Apple first approving a game console emulation and then revoking access based on pressure from the government? I doubt that would happen. Gatekeeper is meant to protect against malicious applications, and nothing else. Anything else would be abuse on Apple's part. Time will tell.

No, the idea is that any developer who wants their app taken seriously will have an ID. After all, if you're up to something nefarious, you don't want apple to have a kill switch on you. So, anyone who doesn't have that ID must be up to no good, huh?

 

[Small White Car]

Then I pretty much got his point, tyvm for assuming I didn't.

And again, this has nothing to do with that. App store apps have always been signed, MAS or iOS ones. If Apple had really intended for users to side load signed iOS apps, they didn't even need Gate keeper for that or this signing program.

I know they didn't intend for it in the past nor intend for it in the present.

I'm simply hoping that in the future Apple starts to treat the iPad more like a Macbook and less like a phone. And yes, this all has a lot to do with that. If gatekeeper and the MAS make Apple feel like Macs are just a little bit safer, the idea of 'treating an iPad like a Mac' suddenly becomes less scary to Apple execs, doesn't it?

I'm not making a technical point. I'm just saying that anything that makes Apple less nervous about Macs then makes it more likely that iOS will gain Mac features (instead of the all-too-familiar inverse).

I agree 100%. If Apple really wanted users to side load apps on their iPhone, they would have enabled that from day one. They didn’t and I don’t think it had anything to do with a lack of Gatekeeper.

You know what else they didn't have on day one? An app store.

Things change.

And I'm not saying I think these changes will extend to iPhones. I kind of suspect the phones will stay locked down. This is not an iOS vs. Mac OS question. This is a question of "what is an iPad?" I think that iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad may start to diverge.

Look no further than 'The new iPad' name. I think that's Apple's admission that they want you to associate iPads more with MacBooks than with iPhones. (After all, laptops don't have version numbers in their names.) It will be interesting to see where else that sentiment takes us over the next few years.

 

[pdjudd]

How would this help in a Java specific problem?

It won’t. This is not going to stop something that exploits a flaw in a framework (assuming that exploit is an executable). This is intended to target apps that themselves are malicious. It cannot protect against a legit app that has been cleared but gets exploited by a dumb flaw.

Oh and how will this work with torrent downloads

This has absolutely nothing to do with the transfer protocol that Bit Torrent uses itself. Nor does this have anything to do with piracy. A pirated app can still be signed and be externally exploited. Nothing you or anybody can do to stop that.

 

[pdjudd]

You know what else they didn't have on day one? An app store.

It has been argued that Apple had plans for an app store very early on. We may never know for sure though.

Things change.

I hate that statement. You can use that to argue any position.

And I'm not saying I think these changes will extend to iPhones. I kind of suspect the phones will stay locked down. This is not an iOS vs. Mac OS question.

Indeed. I don’t know why people in this thread are trying to draw this comparison.

This is a question of "what is an iPad?" I think that iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad may start to diverge.

I really don’t think so. The platforms are way too similar and I think that Apple sees tablets like they do the iPod Touch - just bigger and beefier. I don’t think they want to compare it to a full desktop OS because that would legitimize MS’s tablet marketing (which I doubt that they want to do) and they don’t want people to make unfair comparisons with two very different devices. They categorize them differently. If any divergence happens it’s going to be based on the hardware, but I think it’s fundamentals are going to be shared with the iPhone.

Look no further than 'The new iPad' name. I think that's Apple's admission that they want you to associate iPads more with MacBooks than with iPhones. (After all, laptops don't have version numbers in their names.) It will be interesting to see where else that sentiment takes us over the next few years.

I think its just marketing. Honestly I think Apple is going to the same thing with the iPhone since they can’t realistically apply arbitrary numbers and letters to the iPhone. They are just going to do the same thing with all of their devices, just keep the name the same and the delineator (like the year) in small print.

 

[elgrecomac]

The further closing of an ecosystem

Apple is just trying to close down outsiders to the Apple Ecosystem. And for you fanboys out there, where are the posts from apple 3rd party developers praising this?

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Apple today sent out an email encouraging Mac developers to sign up for the company's Developer ID program so that their apps can be properly signed ahead of the launch of OS X Mountain Lion later this year. Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper feature gives users the ability to set limits on app installation, with the new "Developer ID" program providing a middle ground of security by which developers can certify that they are the developer behind a given application package.

Image


Should the developer be found to behave maliciously, Apple will be able to revoke the Developer ID associated with that developer, preventing applications signed with the ID from running and causing further harm to users.This marks the second such mass emailing to encourage adoption of Developer ID among the Mac developer community, as Apple sent out a similar mailing back in late February following its announcement of OS X Mountain Lion. The next major operating system is due for public launch in "late summer" and will undoubtedly be a featured topic at Apple's sold-out Worldwide Developers Conference in early June.

Article Link: Apple Again Encouraging Mac Developers to Sign Up for Developer ID Ahead of OS X Mountain Lion

 

[Negritude]

From what I can see, there is really no reason for a legitimate software developer not to sign up for this program. It costs nothing...

Actually, we don't know that yet. Has anyone verified that this will be available to all developers, not just the ones with paid accounts?

 

[subsonix]

It won’t. This is not going to stop something that exploits a flaw in a framework (assuming that exploit is an executable). This is intended to target apps that themselves are malicious. It cannot protect against a legit app that has been cleared but gets exploited by a dumb flaw.

Can you explain why, it in theory would not. A security hole typically get's the bad guy in, that is the first step. The second step is to execute code that is downloaded to the machine once the first step is accomplished. This code would not run how ever, since it would not be signed.

 

[codo]

I'm not a developer by any stretch of the imagination.

But... there is just something about this I don't like. I do not want to be told what I can and cannot install by Apple.

As long as Mac users will still be able to install apps from developers which choose not to distribute through the App store (And are presumably therefore going to be 'unsigned'?), then I can live with it. But it seems like a step in the direction of total control, and thats what I don't like.

It does work for the iPhone, and thats great - but my Mac is not a phone and I expect more from it.

 

[macUser2007]

Actually, we don't know that yet. Has anyone verified that this will be available to all developers, not just the ones with paid accounts?

Plus, what if, just like with iOS, Apple decided that Skype is duplicating iChat (like it had decided about Google Voice).

Or, what about porn, torrent and other p2p clients?

Or, what about an unauthorized Steve Jobs biography (like the one was banned from the Apple Store)?

 

[spacemanspifff]

Gatekeeper is irrelevant - at the moment.

When Mountain Lion appears, you'll still be able to download and install apps not signed by Apple. My guess is that there will be a scary looking dialog box telling you that you shouldn't as the app is not trusted. But at the moment all apps not in the App Store are not trusted and we don't have a problem. Gatekeeper is a solution to a non-existant problem. It only helps one company - Apple - as they will get $99 per year from all the people who already sell apps without giving Apple a cut.

They can dress it up anyway they like, but I've been installing apps on my system for over 20 years without this big brother ********. All this will do is stifle innovation, as small developers may not want to spend $99 when they can't make that back.

If Gatekeeper evolves in the future to disallow the installation of any non-signed software then we will be in trouble.

In the end, someone will jailbreak Gatekeeper anyway (they probably already have) - so its a complete waste of time. IMHO