zlacker

You don't even need a true signature. An ad-hoc one (which can be linker-generated) and has no cryptographic key attached is considered as valid.

>>my123+(OP)
And in the next N releases of macOS those features will be quietly removed since 99% users are running properly notarized binaries anyway...

>>darkwa+x3
That’s certainly an option. But absolutely nothing points to it being the actual thing that will happen other than wild baseless speculation.

>>darkwa+x3
Why would that happen in the next N releases, when it hasn't happened in the previous M releases? What's changed?

>>user-t+pb1
I think there's some perception by people like this that --- there's some massive goal towards restricting users, and each change in the security policy is an incremental step.

But it doesn't really make sense:

- All the technical work to restrict users could certainly be done in one release: it's not that hard.

- As to market acceptance, I don't think any of the changes re: binary signing are "getting users used to" being restricted.

So, requiring signed binaries doesn't appreciably make the technical or market challenges of restricting unapproved apps easier.