• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Code signing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Code signing


  • Subject: Re: Code signing
  • From: Wade Tregaskis <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:51:18 +1000

In theory, this would certainly be useful (I know I'd probably find some way to use this, if it was a system provided service). But from a security perspective, it's much weaker than it seems. If the goal is to prevent unauthorized plugins from be run (for example), the attack vector of the original hosting app is still wide open, so one can hack the original app to ignore the plugin signing (since the is no signing of the hosting application - it would have to be the kernel that checks that, which, of course brings us back to it having to be a system level service for real security).

So basically, it would be as effective as a form of copy protection would be, but that doesn't make it secure.

Well, yes and no. I could just as easily say the Unix permissions model is useless because I could just get the root password and then do what I want. Obviously there's a way to break any mechanism, but each one - if implemented intelligently and appropriate - can add significant security.


In the example I previously provided, you could have a root app which (for whatever reason) allows users to provide their own plugins (as in, without an admin installing them) - you'd need some way to prevent unauthorised plugins from being executed. Sure, you *could* rig a userland plugin driver, and have some kind of IPC linking it to your root core (or conversely, abstract the root requirements into a separate executable), but then you open up additional attack fronts.

FWIW though, the scheme I just mentioned - abstracting root stuff into a separate, minimalistic core - is nonetheless the preferred way for handling such an issue, I would think. But then, it could still be complemented by (or, if your plugin architecture truly demands it, require) signed plugins.

Wade Tregaskis (AIM/iChat, Yahoo, Gizmo & Skype: wadetregaskis, ICQ: 40056898, MSN: email@hidden, AV iChat & email: email@hidden, Jabber: email@hidden)
-- Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Code signing
      • From: glenn andreas <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Code signing (From: Brad Peterson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Code signing (From: glenn andreas <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Code signing (From: email@hidden)
 >Re: Code signing (From: glenn andreas <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re:Newbie question
  • Next by Date: Re: Code signing
  • Previous by thread: Re: Code signing
  • Next by thread: Re: Code signing
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread