Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

OS X Mountain Lion Limits Apps to Mac App Store, Signed Apps by Default

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,521
11,906



One of the significant new features in OS X Mountain Lion is Gatekeeper, a new security system to help keep users from installing nefarious applications on their machines.

The new system relies not only on Mac App Store distribution as means of vetting apps, but also on a new "identified developer" program under which developers distributing their applications outside of the Mac App Store can register with Apple and receive a personalized certificate they can use to sign their applications. Apple can then use that system to track developers and disable their certificates if malicious activity is detected.




As Macworld notes in its review of Gatekeeper, OS X Mountain Lion's default setting will be to only allow initial launching of apps either downloaded from the Mac App Store or which are digitally signed under Apple's identified developer program. Users will be able to access Gatekeeper's settings in the Security & Privacy section of System Preferences, where they will also be able to choose from an even stricter setting that will allow for installation of Mac App Store apps only or a looser setting that will allow all applications to be installed and launched.
Located in the General tab of the Security & Privacy preference pane is a setting called "Allow applications downloaded from," with three options:

Anywhere: This choice uses the same set of rules as every previous version of Mac OS X. If an app isn't known malware and you approve it, it opens.

Mac App Store: When this choice is selected, any apps not downloaded from the Mac App Store will be rejected when you try to launch them.

Mac App Store and identified developers: This is the new default setting in Mountain Lion. In addition to Mac App Store apps, it also allows any third-party apps that have been signed by an identified developer to run.
For users on the default setting, they can bypass the initial Gatekeeper check the first time they launch an unsigned third-party app by right clicking on the app itself and choosing the "Open" command. Once the application has been opened one time, Gatekeeper no longer has any control over it.

As for apps that are signed by an identified developer, Macworld notes that OS X Mountain Lion will perform a daily check with Apple's servers for blacklisted developer signatures, and if an app from a blacklisted developer is installed on the user's system it will not open.

Importantly, Apple's identified developer program does not involve any sort of vetting on Apple's part, as certificates are automatically issued upon request and can be freely used by the developers. But what the program does do is provide a way for Apple to link specific developers to specific apps and use Gatekeeper to revoke application functionality should a developer be discovered to be distributing malware.

Article Link: OS X Mountain Lion Limits Apps to Mac App Store, Signed Apps by Default
 

0dev

macrumors 68040
Dec 22, 2009
3,947
23
127.0.0.1
Well we all knew this was coming. After Mountain Lion we'll have to jailbreak to run apps from outside the App Store.
 

dethmaShine

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2010
1,697
0
Into the lungs of Hell

********.

You may wanna go and check the Gatekeeper developer meaning again.

As much as a geek I am, I am probably gonna run the OS in Mac App Store only Gatekeeper mode and revert to Anywhere when I need to install some stuff on the web.

This is the best Apple can do for the very vast number of users. Caters to us geeks, caters to normal people and caters to those who don't know the **** they are doing.

This is unbelievably awesome.


Well we all knew this was coming. After Mountain Lion we'll have to jailbreak to run apps from outside the App Store.

On the contrary, this is evidence that Apple is NOT going to close the Mac. Things cannot be much more obvious for those who really wish to see without bias and hatred.

Short story for those interested:
Just a couple of days back, one of my friends referred to this concept in general and I was so blown away (shame I couldn't figure out myself). This also prevented Apple from changing the underlying UNIX system to an extent where they would revoke installation permissions from the user or admin or even the super-user. Maybe an additional private kernel model only used for app installations.

This is absolutely surreal. Best ****in feature ever. People don't realise this but this makes me believe that Apple is running for the geeks too. Long live Apple.
 
Last edited:

tomkeddie

macrumors newbie
May 9, 2011
2
0
Technical details?

I'd be interested at what level the restrictions are implemented. Are command line and daemons affected too? Will certain bloat simple utilities (macports?) if they have to carry certificates.
 

KingJosh

macrumors 6502
Jan 11, 2012
431
0
Australia
This is just a security measure for non professional users like old people not a hostile takeover geez. People need to get their eyes checked

----------

********.

You may wanna go and check the Gatekeeper developer meaning again.

As much as a geek I am, I am probably gonna run the OS in Mac App Store only Gatekeeper mode and revert to Anywhere when I need to install some stuff on the web.

This is the best Apple can do for the very vast number of users. Caters to us geeks, caters to normal people and caters to those who don't know the **** they are doing.

This is unbelievably awesome.

spot on. If only other people could see properly eh
 

0dev

macrumors 68040
Dec 22, 2009
3,947
23
127.0.0.1
It's so sad everyone is seeing this as a good thing and is downvoting those who say otherwise. I guess that's why Apple can get away with locking down Macs so much.
 

AriX

macrumors 6502
Jan 8, 2007
349
0
Interestingly, this appears to be a Finder-level restriction - where Finder will not open apps that are unsigned unless you tell it to - as opposed to a system-level restriction, as on iOS, where unsigned code will not be run no matter what. Unsigned programs run from the Terminal, for example, would be unaffected.

Theoretically it would be easy for someone to write a signed application that launches unsigned applications with no problem - i.e. if someone with signing capability wrote a simple "shell" app that encapsulated an unsigned app, rogue developers, hackers, or anyone could use it to distribute their unsigned apps as signed apps.

Also, I don't believe the "identified developer" program is new - it just refers to anyone who has signed up for Apple's $99 Mac Developer Program; these developers are already issued certificates for signing Mac code.

NOTE: I could be wrong - I haven't gotten my hands on the OS quite yet.
 
Last edited:

deputy_doofy

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2002
1,395
266
Yes, in Mountain Lion. But I was saying that Apple will silently phase that out in the next release.

I will remain an optimist for now. In some respects, I like the GateKeeper concept. However, if Apple removes (or hides) the "anywhere" feature in 10.9 or higher, I will re-think my OS of choice (but *still* won't consider Windows). When malware can get onto my machine and install like machine-gun fire (this is on a corporate network with "enterprise-level" anti-malware software) when I don't even have admin access myself to install anything, MS will never have my business. I guess I'll revisit (and learn) Linux at that point.
 

realmike15

macrumors member
Feb 1, 2010
81
0
I got worried reading this, but as long as there's an option to disable this I'm fine with it. However the day they start limiting apps to Apple Approved Digitally Signed applications only... is the day I sell off my Apple products. I run Windows, Linux, and OS X daily and have no problem doing it, if push comes to shove.

:cool:

For the record I'm not complaining. I think someone like my grandmother would benefit greatly from having the applications she installs on her computer monitored. As long as there's an opt out feature for people who know what they're doing, that's all I ask for as a customer.
 

jayducharme

macrumors 68040
Jun 22, 2006
3,846
3,828
The thick of it
As long as I don't have to deal with the continual pop-up warnings that Windows is famous for, I'm fine. I'll set the system for "Anywhere" and keep on using my Mac like I always have.
 

swordfish5736

macrumors 68000
Jun 29, 2007
1,898
106
Cesspool
i highly doubt apple will completely lock down OS X from non mac app store app's. They are simply making the machine more secure to the average user. It's not hard to allow other apps and im sure if you try and open one downloaded elsewhere it will tell you exactly how to allow it. This just pretty much makes it so any malware would have to be signed for it to open on a mac with the default setting, imo better for the average user
 

ppilone

macrumors 6502
Jan 20, 2008
361
0
I knew I shouldn't have looked at this thread... immediately full of "Goodbye OS X" posts.

Gatekeeper really does seem like an intelligent approach to security in OS X. If anything, I think it re-affirms that OS X will not be Mac App Store only for the foreseeable future. Apple is giving developers an opportunity to play nice, without all the headache and restrictions placed on distributing through the Mac App Store.

Gatekeeper, IMHO, feels like a "we get it - it's not iOS" from Apple. In fact, I'm hoping for Gatekeeper to show up in iOS 6.
 

calderone

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2009
3,728
196
Seattle
I will remain an optimist for now. In some respects, I like the GateKeeper concept. However, if Apple removes (or hides) the "anywhere" feature in 10.9 or higher, I will re-think my OS of choice (but *still* won't consider Windows). When malware can get onto my machine and install like machine-gun fire (this is on a corporate network with "enterprise-level" anti-malware software) when I don't even have admin access myself to install anything, MS will never have my business. I guess I'll revisit (and learn) Linux at that point.

Apple has been pushing signing for some time now (since Leopard). Most developers should be AT LEAST signing their apps by 10.9.
 

swarmster

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2004
623
89
This is great. Taking the "this file was downloaded from the internet, are you sure you want to run it?" dialog box one step further should help a lot of people. And really, that's all we're talking about here, since even ignoring the free licenses and non-default settings, you can still launch any app with a one-time right click.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.