Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

gradient · Oct 26, 2007, 11:24 PM

OMG..... a MAJOR pet peeve instantly appeared when I tried to install my favourite little app.......

I can't find anywhere to turn this off..... it's going to drive me insane very fast.

0157988944 · Oct 26, 2007, 11:46 PM

You can't. But do you download apps that often? it's only the first time you run a downloaded app that it does that.

CharlesS · Oct 26, 2007, 11:49 PM

Frankly, it's a good idea. It keeps apps from masquerading as a GIF by faking their icon, and it's a hell of a lot less annoying than that "This archive could contain an application. Are you sure you want to continue downloading this?" dialog that was in Tiger.

jokell82 · Oct 26, 2007, 11:51 PM

Yeah this is a great addition IMO.

gradient · Oct 26, 2007, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

You can't. But do you download apps that often? it's only the first time you run a downloaded app that it does that.

Actually I do download apps a lot. I'm one of those people who are always downloading this bit of shareware or that just for the heck of it. I just find this very irritating, not to mention hypocritical of Apple, after the ads they put out, making fun of Vista for the exact same reason.

mduell · Oct 26, 2007, 11:59 PM

Vista lite

MindFad · Oct 27, 2007, 12:00 AM

Hey, that's awesome.

That's nice that it tells you it was downloaded and where from. It only shows it once, so no biggy.

brokenjago · Oct 27, 2007, 12:05 AM

gradient:

I think you're going overboard here. The dialogs in Vista are MUCH more numerous than that, asking you to cancel of allow things such as changing the date. please educate yourself before you make statements based on no fact.

This is a prudent security measure on Apple's part, imo.

0157988944 · Oct 27, 2007, 12:07 AM

It just replaces the existing one in Tiger, which is much more annoying.

CharlesS · Oct 27, 2007, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by brokenjago

gradient:

I think you're going overboard here. The dialogs in Vista are MUCH more numerous than that, asking you to cancel of allow things such as changing the date. please educate yourself before you make statements based on no fact.

This is a prudent security measure on Apple's part, imo.

No way. If Vista has overdone security, than OS X should have no security at all.

Just like if there's a guy next to me that eats too much and is overweight, now to avoid a comparison I have to abstain completely from food until I wither away and die.

gradient · Oct 27, 2007, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by brokenjago

gradient:

I think you're going overboard here. The dialogs in Vista are MUCH more numerous than that, asking you to cancel of allow things such as changing the date. please educate yourself before you make statements based on no fact.

This is a prudent security measure on Apple's part, imo.

True, I was exaggerating by saying they are exactly the same, but flinging stones isn't exactly called for. One person's prudent security is another's pain in the neck.

OliverTwist · Oct 27, 2007, 01:20 AM

I for one am excited about this feature. Coupled with the firewall, this provides a rock-solid defense against malware, both more thorough and less annoying than signature-based anti-virus programs. I made a thread a while ago about the concept of whitelisting all good executables and blocking everything else, but this system is potentially even better: Tag all executables downloaded from the internet and require authorization before running.

voodoo · Oct 27, 2007, 01:21 AM

This is very similar to what is in Tiger. When one downloads an app Safari complains and when one runs it from the first time in the Finder the Finder complains.

Allow or cancel. So what else is new?

V

gradient · Oct 27, 2007, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by OliverTwist

I for one am excited about this feature. Coupled with the firewall, this provides a rock-solid defense against malware, both more thorough and less annoying than signature-based anti-virus programs. I made a thread a while ago about the concept of whitelisting all good executables and blocking everything else, but this system is potentially even better: Tag all executables downloaded from the internet and require authorization before running.

It seems to only apply to downloads from Safari, though. For kicks I downloaded an app using Transmission and it let me run it without any warning at all.

AC Rempt · Oct 27, 2007, 01:51 AM

And it's just common sense with malware running rampant, and the Mac gaining popularity. gradient, keep in mind that you might just download a file and not know there's an app imbedded. I don't have a problem with the warning at all, and in fact, I appreciate it.

And if I remember properly, people were complaining when Safari would download apps without any sort of warning.

Sorry you don't dig it, gradient.

Helmling · Oct 27, 2007, 01:55 AM

I'm not even understanding...how is this any different than Tiger?

voodoo · Oct 27, 2007, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

I'm not even understanding...how is this any different than Tiger?

The spelling?

V

gradient · Oct 27, 2007, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

I'm not even understanding...how is this any different than Tiger?

If you can tell me how it is at all the same as Tiger, I'm all ears. My memory could be failing me more then I realize, but I don't remember getting a pop up regarding running any app that I've downloaded in 10.4. Just to double check my level of sanity, I went back and downloaded an app on my other machine that hasn't been upgraded yet and got no message at all after running it.

CharlesS · Oct 27, 2007, 02:48 AM

You can thank me for it, as the warnings are pretty much the result of a security bug which I discovered by accident while arguing with an obnoxious person in a long thread. This post is where the light bulb first went on - on the next page, things really start to develop.

If you read the whole thread, you can see what sorts of things are possible if you do not have warnings like this.

~bash $ · Oct 27, 2007, 02:51 AM

Kind of makes those allow or deny PC v. Mac commercials a bit more ironic.

I find it supremely annoying, since I take my security seriously enough to only download apps from trusted vendors. Never had a problem on Windows or Mac, ever. I just don't understand what people are downloading and doing with their computers.

gradient · 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

You can thank me for it, as the warnings are pretty much the result of a security bug which I discovered by accident while arguing with an obnoxious person in a long thread. This post is where the light bulb first went on - on the next page, things really start to develop.

If you read the whole thread, you can see what sorts of things are possible if you do not have warnings like this.

Point taken!

CharlesS · Oct 27, 2007, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by ~bash $

Kind of makes those allow or deny PC v. Mac commercials a bit more ironic.

I find it supremely annoying, since I take my security seriously enough to only download apps from trusted vendors. Never had a problem on Windows or Mac, ever. I just don't understand what people are downloading and doing with their computers.

Read the thread to which I linked to find out.

Apps can register for protocols. Web pages can have stuff automatically download in the background. So consider the following scenario.

1. You browse to a page.

2. The page runs a JavaScript which causes a .zip file of an app to automatically download.

3. Safari automatically expands the .zip, thinking it's a "safe" file.

4. The JavaScript waits a few seconds and then redirects to an "evil:" URL.

5. The app that downloaded has registered for the "evil:" URL, and now auto-launches.

Or even the simple social engineering scenario, where you can replace steps 4 and 5 with:

4. The app that the script downloaded has the icon of a PNG file, and is named "Picture 1".

5. The user looks at what he/she thinks is a picture, thinks "Hmm, what's this", and double-clicks the app.

You need to have warning systems to prevent against things like this.

brokenjago · Oct 27, 2007, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by gradient

True, I was exaggerating by saying they are exactly the same, but flinging stones isn't exactly called for. One person's prudent security is another's pain in the neck.

You're correct. I apologize for flinging stones.

Mithras · Oct 27, 2007, 10:52 PM

Yes, and you did nice sleuthing there; though they did address that in Tiger with the "you haven't handled this url protocol before" warning. The "you haven't opened this app before" warning is a bit much, but I respect the reasoning behind it.

CharlesS · Oct 27, 2007, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

Yes, and you did nice sleuthing there; though they did address that in Tiger with the "you haven't handled this url protocol before" warning. The "you haven't opened this app before" warning is a bit much, but I respect the reasoning behind it.

Not completely. The "You haven't handled this URL protocol before" message doesn't address my second scenario: the application has disguised itself to look like a PNG image and tricked the user into double-clicking it.