Comment by mixologic

Comment by mixologic 5 hours ago

14 replies

View on Hacker News

If you want to install software on your Microsoft Windows computer, it has to be signed by a verified developer, otherwise you get an overridable warning that the developer cannot be verified, the software may contain malware etc.

If you want to install software on you MacOS machine, the same thing applies. It must come from a verified developer with an apple account, otherwise you get a warning and must jump through hoops to override. As of macos15.1 this is considerably more difficult to override.

If you want to install iOS apps, the apps have to be signed by a verified developer. Theres no exceptions.

I just dont see a future where being able to create and publish an app anonymously is going to be supported.

Becoming a verified developer is a PITA, and can take a while or be impossible (i.e. getting a DUNS number if you're in a sanctioned country might be not at all possible) but at the same time, eliminating the ability of our devices from running any old code it downloads and runs is a huge safety win.

kspacewalk2 5 hours ago

I'm okay with overridable warnings, having to open system settings to override the verification, etc. It's a "huge safety win" for the 80% of users who don't really know what they're doing, security wise. But not for me.

I won't be using any OS that doesn't allow me to step outside its walled garden, if I have any alternatives at all. With macOS it's quite simple - the second they won't allow apps from unverified/unsigned developers, I'm switching to Linux. On mobile, I might as well switch to iOS, since I'm not really sure what else Android offers anymore that's so compelling, other than being able to install apps directly. And then I'll just wait for a Linux phone or something.

Reply View 1 reply
  • iszomer 4 hours ago

    Or you can try not updating Android or continue using a device already EOL. Can't have your cake and eat it too on releases and security patches.

    Reply View 0 replies
yjftsjthsd-h 5 hours ago

There is a world of difference between "the OS throws up a bunch of warnings" and "the OS won't let you run unsigned software"

Reply View 4 replies
Krssst 5 hours ago

> I just dont see a future where being able to create and publish an app anonymously is going to be supported.

This is strongly needed if surveillance laws like Chat Control are not to be trivially bypassed. This way applications that don't offer governments the required surveillance features can be banned and the developpers can be sued. Not looking forward to that.

Reply View 0 replies
ptrl600 5 hours ago

I'd be fine if it was just any old code "it" downloads. The problem is that it's any old code "I" download too.

Reply View 0 replies
gumby271 5 hours ago

I dunno man, it doesn't feel like a "huge safety win" that my computer has to check with a singular US tech company before it will let me use any software on it.

Reply View 2 replies
  • mixologic 3 hours ago

    That's only sorta how it usually works. The developer has to check with a singular US tech company before they can sign the software they've given you.

    Except yeah, the way this android stuff works is closer to that way. Instead of Google giving out a key for signing, they instead ask for one and tie a developer to a namespace, so yeah, I guess your Android phone has to check whether or not that namespace is "in the clear"

    Reply View 1 reply
    • gumby271 2 hours ago

      Right, Google could revoke that signature at any time and my device would refuse to install that software. The exact mechanics don't really matter, the end result is the same, my device will only install software that one company approves of and can change at any time, huge win for security right?

      Reply View 0 replies
throw10920 5 hours ago

> eliminating the ability of our devices from running any old code it downloads and runs is a huge safety win

No, this is just false. There's numerous, well-documented instances of malware making it past gatekeepers security checks. This move is exclusively about Google asserting control over users and developers and has nothing to do with security or safety.

The only "huge safety win" comes from designing more secure execution models (capabilities, sandboxing, virtual machines) that are a property of the operating system, not manual inspection by some megacorp (or other human organization).

Reply View 1 reply
  • mixologic 3 hours ago

    Thats a false equivalency. I didnt say that software was safe because its been checked. Just that at the least, one can somewhat figure out where the software came from.

    Getting a DUNS number obviously doesn't make it so that you cant publish malware. It just provides a level of traceability/obstacle that slows down the process of distributing malware.

    Reply View 0 replies