←back to thread

MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

(sigpipe.macromates.com)
2031 points jrk | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.78s | source
Show context
usmannk ◴[] No.23275922[source]
It seems like there is a lot of confusion here as to whether this is real or not. I've been able to confirm the behavior in the post by:

- Using a new, random executable. Even echo $rand_int will work. Edit: What I mean here is generate your rand int beforehand and statically include it in your script.

- Using a fresh filename too. Just throw a rand int at the end there. e.g. /tmp/test4329.sh

I MITMd myself while recording the network traffic and, sure enough, there is a request to ocsp.apple.com with a hash in the URL path and a bunch of binary data in the response body. Unsure what it is yet but the URL suggests it is generating a cert for the binary and checking it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Certificate_Status_Prot...

Here's the URL I saw:

http://ocsp.apple.com/ocsp-devid01/ME4wTKADAgEAMEUwQzBBMAkGB...

Edit2: Anyone know what this hash format is? It's not quite base64, nor is it multiple base64 strings separated with '+'s but it seems similar...

Edit3: Here is the exact filename and file I used: https://gist.github.com/UsmannK/abb4b239c98ee45bdfcc5b284bf0...

Edit4 (final one probably...): On subsequent attempts I'm only seeing a request to https://api.apple-cloudkit.com and not the OCSP one anymore. Curiously, there's no headers at all. It is just checking for connectivity.

replies(13): >>23275956 #>>23276180 #>>23277591 #>>23277808 #>>23278027 #>>23278103 #>>23278258 #>>23278367 #>>23278388 #>>23279695 #>>23281103 #>>23284359 #>>23420492 #
kccqzy ◴[] No.23275956[source]
OCSP is Online Certificate Status Protocol, generally used for checking the revocation status of certificates. You used to be able to turn it off in keychain access, but that ability went away in recent macOS releases.
replies(1): >>23276763 #
VonGuard ◴[] No.23276763[source]
Ah, Apple. When you can no longer innovate, just start removing features and call it simplicity...
replies(4): >>23277034 #>>23277355 #>>23277462 #>>23279640 #
throwaway851 ◴[] No.23277462[source]
Another way to look at it is that Apple is making it harder to run the system in an insecure fashion. You may not agree with that decision, but I certainly appreciate how Apple is looking out for the safety and security of the user.

Tangent: as much as some developers hate that the only way to distribute apps for the iPhone is through the App Store, as a user I consider that walled garden of apps to be a real security benefit. When John Gruber says “If you must use Zoom or simply want to use it, I highly recommend using it on your iPad and iPhone only. The iOS version is sandboxed and reviewed by the App Store.” There’s a reason why he can say things like that and it’s because Apple draws a hard line in the sand that not everyone will be happy with.

replies(8): >>23277588 #>>23278246 #>>23278605 #>>23278675 #>>23278822 #>>23279704 #>>23279782 #>>23282372 #
userbinator ◴[] No.23278246[source]
Another way to look at it is that Apple is making it harder to run the system in an insecure fashion. You may not agree with that decision, but I certainly appreciate how Apple is looking out for the safety and security of the user.

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

(Yes, I know the original intent was slightly different, but that old saying has gotten a lot more vivid recently, as companies are increasingly using the excuse of security to further their own interests and control over their users.)

The ability to control exactly what millions of people can or cannot run on "their" computers is an authoritarian wet dream. People may think Apple's interests aligns with theirs --- but that is not a certainty. How many times have you been stopped from doing what you wanted to because of Apple? It might not be a lot so far, but can you break free from that relationship when/if it does turn against you?

replies(4): >>23278364 #>>23278968 #>>23279076 #>>23280221 #
1. gowld ◴[] No.23278364[source]
That’s not close to the original quote. And it was just Ben Franklin politicking, not the word of god.
replies(1): >>23280043 #
2. deathgrips ◴[] No.23280043[source]
No one cares, it's the concept that matters. This is on the same tier as saying "haha hey buddy looks like you typed 'there' instead of 'their' haha #rekt".
replies(1): >>23281725 #
3. mikeyjk ◴[] No.23281725[source]
> No one cares, it's the concept that matters. This is on the same tier as saying "haha hey buddy looks like you typed 'there' instead of 'their' haha #rekt".

While the content / concept is the main point, facts matter. Even if it is ancillary to the intended message. Why suffer misinformation no matter how small?