This doesn't look evil. It looks like an internal stop-gap measure to prevent the execution of incompatible application versions that crash the OS. Most of the list are older versions of Apple's own apps.
It's "hidden" because it's almost certainly a hacky stop-gap. As far as I can tell, it isn't live updating or checking for new signatures, so the signatures are probably updated on a release basis as issues are found.
I completely agree. It looks like a nice hack that can help you ship in time. Let's say testing shows a few older apps that have drivers that really misbehave on the new system, and you really want to ship this week. To me, adding those apps to a fixed "do not run" list seems to be preferred over shipping later or shipping an OS that will crash with a large portion of your users. That is especially true if those apps have free or cheap updates.
Conspiracy theorists: for Apple, this technique dates back to at least the eighties or so. At some time, Apple introduced a system error "Application has special memory requirements" that basically meant "Sorry, we cannot run Excel 2.2" (text and version may be of). Reason was that that Excel used some bits in pointers for data storage. The new OS or hardware started using those bits itself, so that version of Excel could not run on with it. So, the Finder refused to run that program.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft has been doing the same thing at least since windows 95. I remember trying to run some old version of Nero, the CD-ROM burning tool, on a recent-ish version of Windows, and it popped up a message about known incompatibilities.
"Stop-gap" has a slight implication that it's temporary. A kludge may be forever.
Though, in this case, the stop-gap is at least indefinite from Apple's perspective, since they have no plans to restore binary compatibility for badly-written or otherwise broken drivers and applications, and it's up to the third-party vendor whether to issue a free patch.
> I immediately jumped to the conclusion that Apple was “blacklisting” the app for political reasons
> Wow, they really don’t want me to open this app!
I can't really imagine why one would instantly jump to the first conclusion, and then after a kernel panic still believe it to be malice on the part of the operating system developer. The instant a kernel panic is thrown into the mix, you barely need to check the crash log to realize that there's something fundamentally incompatible.
I was nearly expecting a follow-up line to say "It looks like Apple is patching the VMware modules at runtime, to cause them to crash!"
> ... it’s worth considering whether they will be tempted to use these powers for less honorable goals.
In addition to the version blacklist described here, there's the much-bandied-about "killswitch" in the iOS app store. In the years since iPhoneOS 2.0, has Apple used it for less honourable goals than platform security?
There is a somewhat justifiable reason for the author to jump to that conclusion – VMware Fusion 4.1 (accidentally?) supports the virtualization of Snow Leopard, which violates Apple's EULA. That feature was very quickly removed in a 4.1.x update.
Given that Fusion 4.1.0 is blacklisted while 4.1.3 works fine on Mountain Lion, it's not entirely unreasonable to think that Apple purposefully disabled 4.1.0 to prevent users from virtualizing Snow Leopard against their will.
Not the conclusion I would have jumped to right off the bat, but I can see the train of thought.
What with Gatekeeper* and Developer ID, who didn't see this coming? How else do you protect the walled garden from vile betrayers that come in via Developer ID?
Criminal Hacker gets Dev ID, makes malicious app, distributes said app, runs for months, then one day whamo! it does Nasty Shit. Apple blacklists the app and the Dev ID certs. Easier worm and virus control. At least until one of these rogue devs finds a privilege escalation bug that gets it out of the sandbox and also into more privileged execution.
It's not a magic bullet, but it'll be a good thing unless they abuse it. An example of Apple's track record in this regard would be GPL apps on the App Store - they'll pull the app from the store but I have yet to hear Apple 'remote wiping' someone's previously downloaded apps.
Tangentially, I'm a little miffed at spending $100 to get certificates to do Developer ID, but in the Grand Scheme of Business, it's just not that much money.
I bet $50 the old iCal, Address Book and Front Row are not compatible with new security restrictions introduced in ML, so again you should be happy Apple has blacklisted them.
That doesn't mean that I like the current state of these apps any more than you.
> Tangentially, I'm a little miffed at spending $100 to get certificates to do Developer ID, but in the Grand Scheme of Business, it's just not that much money.
My understanding is that Gatekeeper signing is free.
Depends on how you define "free." Apple says "no additional charge over your Mac Dev membership. It's included with the Mac Developer Program." I spent two entire days watching WWDC videos and digging around on developer.apple.com trying to find out how to get certificates without paying Apple the $99 for Mac Dev.
The Apple employees that I am connected to were also surprised to find out that it wasn't free outside the Mac Dev program. A former Appler helping me dig around also noted that Apple never said it'd be "free."
If you can find somewhere Apple said it would be free, I'd love to dig deeper.
I don't know about you, but I tend to multitask with things like research. Did I spend two solid, uninterrupted days without touching any other projects or not performing any other work-related activities? Of course not. This kind of thing is right up there with "Why is the sky blue?" and researching until you're satisfied with the answer. I spent the money, I'll see a return on the 'investment' before the week's out. But I'd still like to know more about what Apple said, when they said it, and how they've changed it since then.
Also note this in my comment above: "...in the Grand Scheme of Business, it's just not that much money."
Why not? They can get them for $99 and the rewards will likely net them thousands of dollars before Apple catches on and revokes their certificates. If you want cost to be an obstacle to malware authors, it needs to be more than a measly $99.
This is simply a mechanism for Apple to stay ahead of any worm-like activity and they decided to attach a barrier to entry ($99) and recoup a pittance while they're at it.
It also gets Apple more information on the developer, should the company ever want to track them down. A payment history leaves a wider and longer paper trail.
I'd also assume that Apple blacklists any certificate if the developer used some sort of fraudulent payment. I'd hope so, in fact.
>It's not a magic bullet, but it'll be a good thing unless they abuse it. An example of Apple's track record in this regard would be GPL apps on the App Store - they'll pull the app from the store but I have yet to hear Apple 'remote wiping' someone's previously downloaded apps.
Actually they won't "pull the app" by themselves.
At least in the one example I'm aware off, a minor contributor to a project (VLC) specifically _asked_ Apple to remove the app from the iOS app store, pissing on both the users wanting it AND the developers doing the porting for free and making the source code available for everyone, because it being on the app store didn't satisfy some GPL technicality.
Yes, but other people working on the GPL project, including more major contributors didn't have a problem with the porting and availability on iOS.
I guess all it takes is a misguided picking of licence in the beginning and a zealot that contributed somewhat (even marginally) to ruin it for all the other contributors who could care less about 100% enforcement. Maybe that explains why BSD and MIT style licences rule the roost when it comes to new projects on GitHub...
I've got the Exceptions.plist on my 10.6 system, and it's got 48 entries in the MinimumVersionRequirements section. Mostly Apple stuff, but also Parallels Desktop (and I've triggered the error message with this), Intego Virus Barrier and NetUpdate, Elgato EyeTV, and a few others that are a bit surprising: SPSS 17.0, Macromedia Director MX 2004, and Asobo's video game tie-in to Ratatouille.
Windows 7 has something similar, but rather than blocking the app just tells you something like "This application has known problems on Windows 7" and gives you options to check for a fix online, or to run the application anyway (in most cases. there are a select few where it doesn't let you run them at all, but you still get a button to check for a solution).
Even if Apple sticks with blocking the application entirely (which in this particular case they're probably right to do so, as it would cause a kernel panic) it would be nice to put something actionable in the dialog.
Has automatically checking for a fix online ever worked? Admittedly I'm only an infrequent user of Windows, but I've never once had it actually do anything.
Yup! From Vista onwards the various incarnations of that started being more effective for me. In the case of incompatible programs it points you at the latest version of that program, if that fixes the problem. When applications crash and you send the report to Microsoft, I've had fixes come back in some cases including telling me to update a particular driver, or even giving me a Windows hotfix specific to that problem.
I have an iPhone 4 (out of warranty) that all of sudden got stuck on dock mode and stopped playing sounds trough it's speaker. The only time I could hear something from the speaker was the ringtone when someone was calling me.
Before I opened the phone to try to find a fix, I wanted to resolve the issue with software. That because I knew it was a software and not a hardware issue.
Googling around I've found a fix. I had to jailbreak and SSH into the phone in order to delete a launch deamon. After downloading the app for the job, to my amusement, when i executed the app nothing happened.
I quickly fired up a terminal window so I could run the app. It ran. I could jailbreak the device, remove the service, and then the issue was gone.
So Apple is really blacklisting apps in Mountain Lion, not only to protect users. But to keep us from running things they don't like.
There was a problem when installing Snow Leopard, where your computer would crash on boot if you had a specific third party extension installed (I think it was Application Enhancer). I assume to prevent similar problems, Apple started disabling incompatible software after system upgrades in Lion.
The blacklist can't really be called "quiet": On first boot after system upgrade, a dialog box pops up that tells you that incompatible software was moved to a special folder. The affected stuff is mostly kernel extensions that become incompatible.
This may be a small step towards further "appification" of the MacBook line of products, which for better or for worse has been Apple's M.O. lately.
On one hand, I love opening up the App Store on my MacBook and flipping through all the shiny icons in one central location that is safe and easy to use. On the other hand, I worry about Apple controlling the entire distribution channel for consumer software.
Interesting, spent some time perusing the Exceptions.plist file from what I can tell there's nothing explicitly hinky. Looks like it could be big brotherish, but most of the file looks, well helpful.
Most Browsers and BitTorrent clients are set to quarantine files that they create. A lot of keys for App Store categorization etc.
I got a similar message when I found I'd had to reinstall git. Pulled down an image from google code, then git-scm and received a ~"cannot install from unsigned source."
I'm not sure why I had to reinstall in the first place. Specifying "Allow software from ANYWHERE to run" did the trick. This might be off-putting to some.
All this stuff does disturb a bit but as a less-than-lover of Apple, I'll still admit that whitelists are where the real big-brotherishness comes in. Blacklists are inherently more an "FYI, this is a problem" approach.
It's "hidden" because it's almost certainly a hacky stop-gap. As far as I can tell, it isn't live updating or checking for new signatures, so the signatures are probably updated on a release basis as issues are found.