This code signing enforcement stuff has gone way too far. Heads should roll for this.
This code signing enforcement stuff has gone way too far. Heads should roll for this.
You can like that behavior or find it unacceptable, but the issue in OP is not that, it was applying to executables that had already been launched plenty of times on the machine.
Imagine how many people would lost their productiveness, maybe not at the big corps or govt (I assume they use a version of mac that call somewhere else/don't). But very very many people.
It wouldn't surprise me if they one day wanted to require you to be online 100% of the time so that you can't skip the OCSP checks on applications, but I don't think that would go over very well. Apple wouldn't even be the first to produce applications that refuse to work if there's no internet connection. If you don't like the thought that they might one day spring this on you, I recommend investigating Linux.
It's an invasive restriction, cynically designed, poorly engineered and improperly managed, that impairs your ability to function.. masquerading as security.
macOS is my favorite OS, but I don't need to use it. I was so psyched reading about the new Macbooks, and I've had to walk all that excitement back now. I cannot invest in a computer that locks me out of my job if a cable gets cut by a maintenance crew in Cupertino.
If your computer is able to resolve DNS for ocsp.apple.com but to connection-timeout all traffic, yes, you could possibly reproduce today's issue.
I’m wondering, suppose it was designed this way because part of the goal is to prevent the spread of malware, the fastest means of which is an internet connected computer. In that event, the feature only intrudes when the computer, by virtue of it’s internet connection, is a member of the threat class.
So... plausible?
Remembering the notarization problems people were having months ago I did some tests and confirmed.
Now have little snitch installed again and my laptops going to be an Apple orphan. So I never noticed this problem today by virtue of it pissing me off 2 days before.
Basically you'll get the usual GateKeeper window, but with a slightly different message, along the lines of "I can't check this binary in realtime but I trust the embedded notarization".
The problem here is simply that Apple did not build a short enough timeout into their client.
That might be what we just saw happen.
The problem today is that not that the connection to the server failed, but that it succeeded very slowly. The result was an accidental denial of service on the client.
It is a bug, and an easily fixed one at that.
This is the reason I can no longer use Apple computers - the continuous battle they are waging against the users freedom on all fronts - the anxiety of what they will do next to _my_ computer is too much.
Your only real recourse is to compile everything from source after a thorough review every time...
...or else trust someone.
Sure Apple had a problem here, but there are so many other reasons to trust them over any other org that I can't in good conscience switch platforms, because there's so much more anxiety elsewhere.
With Linux you don't have to worry about every program you launch being reported to the mothership, or that failure of the mothership to respond would cause your computer to not function.
Just because there's no single central org involved doesn't mean there aren't risks.
https://medium.com/sensorfu/how-my-application-ran-away-and-...
I hate it too, but 'theater' implies it isn't useful in any way.
The thing Apple does, on the other hand, with trusting themselves more than the user, is disgusting. I'm mostly libertarian, but if I ever become a president, this would be one of the first things I'd make illegal, right after shortening the copyright term to like 3 years.
> I'm mostly libertarian, but if I ever become a president, this would be one of the first things I'd make illegal, right after shortening the copyright term to like 3 years.
As a libertarian I can see the argument for getting rid of presumptive copyright (and tanking the US economy), but the government preventing people from entering into contracts that you don't like? That's just hypocritical.
It's not that. Plain and simple: in an ideal world, more money shouldn't grant more power and immunity. Governments should disincentivize this growth into the sky by, for example, progressive taxation for companies. The world would be a better place if tech companies actually competed with each other by making better products, not trying their damnest to lock everyone into their walled gardens to earn even more money they have no clue what to do with. Currently, when choosing something like a computer or a phone, you just pick one that sucks the least. There's no healthy competition.
It almost certainly is, but
1. You have to know it's happening before you can do anything about it
2. If your "work" isn't registered with the copyright office, you're limited to actual damages, which are probably close to $0
"Why were you offline when using your computer?"
I've seen an identical problem where Chrome would hang for minutes when loading sites, and it was because I was in a firewalled environment that was outright dropping packets to Chrome's OCSP server.
Linux won't report to the mothership by design. If things work 100% correctly, you don't have to worry about some company knowing what programs you run and when.
If you're a media person then yeah, I feel bad for you, i've been there and it sucks, you're stuck with mac and windows if you require mainstream design apps.
So yeah, always gotta find out what a person means when they say "Libertarian"