Reading view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.

Why notarize apps?

Signing and notarization of apps and other executable code is a controversial topic. Over the last decade and more Apple has steadily introduced increasingly demanding standards, now requiring developers to notarize apps and other code they distribute outside the App Store. This article tries to explain why, and how this contributes to Mac security.

I would hope that what we all want is confidence that all executable code that our Mac runs, in particular apps, is exactly as was built by its developer. In addition to that, in the event that any code is found to be malicious, then macOS can promptly protect us by refusing to launch it. The first requirement is thus about verification of apps and code, and the second is about having a system that can block code from being launched in the first place.

CDHashes

The well-proven way to verify that files and bundles haven’t changed is using cryptographic hashes of their contents. Compute a hash, save it in a way that can’t be tampered with, and you can verify a bundle by recomputing its hash and confirming that it hasn’t changed. Apple has been using this for a long time, and its approach is a little more complex, as explained in detail in this excellent tech note.

When an app is signed, hashes are computed for different parts of its contents and assembled into a code directory, a data structure rather than a folder/directory. That data structure is then hashed to form the cdhash, or CDHash with mixed case to aid its reading. Because it’s a hash of hashes, it uniquely identifies that app, bundle or other executable code. CDHashes are thus part of the signing process, and the signature contains those CDHashes. They are also part of the notarization process, in which Apple’s Notary Service signs the CDHashes for code when it undergoes notarization, and that forms the notarization ticket that’s issued for that app, and normally attached or ‘stapled’ to it.

Between them, code signing and notarization thus provide two levels of verification, in a signature attached to the code itself, and in a record kept by Apple following successful notarization.

Unsigned apps

An unsigned app has no CDHashes, so its contents are uncontrolled and no verification is possible. It can change its own contents, morph itself from benign to malicious, forge its identity by posing as a completely different app, or be hijacked to run malicious code. While macOS could compute its CDHashes and Apple could try to track them, there’s no way to verify its identity, so external checks aren’t feasible, and there’s no way to block the code from being launched, as all it would need to do to evade that would be to change itself so its CDHashes changed.

Although macOS running on Intel Macs long tolerated this, from their release four years ago, Apple silicon Macs have refused to run such unsigned code.

Ad-hoc signed apps

Since Apple required code to be signed for Apple silicon Macs, all self-respecting build systems for macOS have automatically signed the code they generate. However, unless the developer has a certificate issued by Apple, by default they use ‘ad hoc’ certificates that are created locally and lack any chain of trust. That enables anyone to create CDHashes at any time, without any traceability to a trusted root certificate.

This is a slight improvement on completely unsigned code, and does enable an app to be identified by its CDHashes, but as they’re so easy to create, there’s no reliable way to verify that the app hasn’t changed since its original build. Although Apple could try to collect those CDHashes, there’s no useful way to block code from being launched, as all an adversary needs is to resign the code to change its CDHashes: they’re simply too labile to be trustworthy.

Certificate signed apps

For many years, before Apple introduced notarization over six years ago, this was the standard expected, but not required, of apps distributed by third-party developers. Although in theory developers could have used certificates provided by other authorities, not all Certificate Authorities are equal in their diligence, and Apple rightly wanted to be responsible for all revocations.

Certificates add control and verification, within limits determined by the certificate user. CDHashes gathered from code can be collected, but again their provenance relies on their user. At one time, they were commonly abused by those distributing malicious software. Although abused certificates were revoked by Apple, before that could happen, the malware had to be detected and identified, which could allow it to be run by many users for long before it could be blocked.

Certificate checks were another problem with this approach. It isn’t practical to check each certificate every time code is to be launched, so approvals have to be cached locally, adding to the delay before any revocation becomes effective.

notariznhashes1

Notarization

To address the limitations of signing code using developer certificates, Apple introduced the process of notarization. In this context, it adds:

  • CDHashes from notarization are known to Apple, and stored in its database, for quicker online checks, and more rapid revocation.
  • Apple screens apps being notarized to detect those that may be malicious.
  • Apple has a complete copy of every app that has been notarized, and already knows its CDHashes.

This finally checks the provenance of all code being run, through its CDHashes; if they’re not already known to Apple, then that build of the app can’t have been notarized, and can be blocked from launching, provided the user doesn’t disable notarization checks. Screening for malware forces those trying to get malicious code notarized to adopt techniques of obfuscation, but even if those are successful, Apple already has a copy of that app and its CDHashes. That eliminates much of the delay incurred by certificate-signed apps. Together these have proved sufficient disincentive to malware developers to try to abuse notarization.

Key features of notarization are thus:

  • Verification that the app or code hasn’t changed since it was built by its developer, up to the moment that it’s run.
  • Independent verification against Apple’s database.
  • Rapid blocking if the app or code is discovered to be malicious.
  • Apple is provided with a full copy of the app or code, to aid any further investigation.
  • All apps or code are checked independently for evidence that they’re malicious, before they can be released.

If you can come up with a system that achieves those and could replace notarization, I’m sure that Apple would love to hear of it.

Launching apps in Sonoma 14.6.1: Conclusions

Over a series of three articles last week, I pored over thousands of log entries to examine how macOS Sonoma 14.6.1 checks applications it’s launching, under normal full security settings, with reduced security, and for known malware. This article draws together my conclusions from those tests run in virtual machines on an Apple silicon Mac.

Layered security

Like other security functions in macOS, app launch security is built in layers, including checks of

  • code-signing certificates (multiple times);
  • CDHashes, including their consistency, and against Apple’s database for notarized apps, and their revocation;
  • quarantine extended attributes, which normally trigger a user consent dialog, and may result in app translocation;
  • previous launch, in the LaunchServices database;
  • matches with Yara rules in XProtect’s data;
  • user consent to a first launch prompt dialog;
  • launch and other constraints.

Additional data may also be collected and stored in the provenance database that first appeared in Ventura.

Not all checks are performed on every launch of an app. At a minimum, for a notarized app that has been run only recently, these might consist of only local checks against CDHashes and with the app’s existing entry in the LaunchServices database. Checks are also modified by reducing security settings:

  • Disabling Gatekeeper checks doesn’t stop those checks from taking place, but apparently ignores some results, notably those obtained by XProtect. It doesn’t affect checks of CDHashes against Apple’s database.
  • Disabling SIP has more pervasive effects in largely disabling the com.apple.syspolicy sub-system, affecting several layers, although checks of CDHashes against Apple’s database are unaffected.

com.apple.syspolicy

In full security conditions, one sub-system dominates log entries concerning app launch security, com.apple.syspolicy. This is clearest in Gatekeeper and XProtect checks. Although the log entries that follow may appear bewildering, they are the best illustration of this point.

When launching a notarized app that hasn’t previously been run on that Mac and has a quarantine xattr, Gatekeeper and XProtect scans are reported in the following sequence of entries:
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK process assessment: <private> <-- (<private>, <private>)
com.apple.syspolicy.exec Gatekeeper assessment rooted at: <private>
com.apple.syspolicy.exec Skipping TCC check due to process: 692, 0, 692
com.apple.syspolicy.exec queueing up scan for code: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null))
com.apple.syspolicy.exec starting work for scan for code: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null))
com.apple.syspolicy.exec allowUI is YES, creating codeEval object: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null))
com.apple.syspolicy.exec Adding default exception for team: <private>
com.apple.syspolicy.exec Registered app bundle for protection: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null))
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK performScan: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null))
com.apple.xprotect XProtectScan beginAnalysisWithResultsHandler continueOnError is set to 0
com.apple.xprotect XPAssessment performAnalysisOnFileImpl continueOnError set to 0
com.apple.xprotect Xprotect is performing a direct malware and dylib scan: <private>

Those checks later complete in entries such as:
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK Xprotect results: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)), XPScan: 0,-7676743164328624005,2024-08-26 08:19:01 +0000,(null)
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK scan complete: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)), 4, 4, 0
com.apple.syspolicy.exec scan finished, waking up any waiters: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist), (bundle_id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist)
com.apple.syspolicy.exec App gets first launch prompt because responsibility: <private>, <private>
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK evaluateScanResult: 0, PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist), (bundle_id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist), 1, 0, 1, 0, 4, 4, 0
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK eval - was allowed: 1, show prompt: 1
com.apple.syspolicy.exec Skipping TCC check due to process: 692, 0, 692
com.apple.syspolicy Found console users: <private>
com.apple.syspolicy.exec Prompt shown (5, 0), waiting for response: PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist), (bundle_id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist)

When SIP has been disabled, there are precious few entries from com.apple.syspolicy or com.apple.syspolicy.exec. Instead, XProtect appears to be left to its own devices, and doesn’t fare well:
com.apple.xprotect XPAssessment performAnalysisOnFileImpl continueOnError set to 0
com.apple.xprotect XprotectService Calling SecAssessmentCreate with URL <private>, context <private>
XprotectService SecTrustEvaluateIfNecessary
com.apple.xprotect XprotectService Bundle is not apple signed
com.apple.xprotect XprotectService Bundle size result: 18388222 (YES)
com.apple.xprotect XprotectService Always scan: YES
com.apple.xprotect XprotectService Starting malware scan for: <private>
kernel XprotectService [697] crossed memory high watermark (15 MB); EXC_RESOURCE
kernel Full corpse enqueued for XprotectService
com.apple.xnu memorystatus kernel kernel EXC_RESOURCE -> XprotectService[697] exceeded mem limit: ActiveSoft 15 MB (non-fatal)
ReportCrash event condition bump 0 -> 1
ReportCrash post-exception thread qos drop 21 -> 17
ReportCrash PID 697 exceeded the memory high watermark; Invoking ReportMemoryException with corpse.

There are no other entries referring to Gatekeeper or those checks. The effects of disabling SIP appear extensive and pervasive throughout several of the layers of app launch security.

CDHashes are central

With the adoption of notarization, apps run in macOS should now fall into one of five categories:

  • signed by Apple, either its own apps or those delivered through its App Store;
  • notarized by Apple, with its CDHashes added to Apple’s database;
  • signed (either with a Developer certificate, or ad hoc) locally, and not distributed over the internet, with its own unique CDHashes;
  • unwanted or malicious, with revoked CDHashes,
  • unrecognised, and potentially malicious.

These emphasise the importance of the online ‘notarization’ checks of CDHashes performed in all circumstances where macOS doesn’t have previous records of saved CDHashes for that code. Their primary purpose isn’t to validate notarization, but to identify code as known good, known bad, or unknown. When Apple’s security engineers identify new malware, its CDHashes can quickly be added to the database as being revoked, so ensuring that all subsequent checks of the same CDHash will be classified as revoked, for malicious code. This is a rapid response that should have no false positives, in which benign code is mistakenly identified as being malicious.

Typically, the checking sequence is reported in the log with:
com.apple.syspolicy looking up ticket: <private>, 2, 1
com.apple.syspolicy cloudkit record fetch: <private>, <private>
com.apple.syspolicy cloudkit request cache info: <private>, max-age=300
com.apple.syspolicy CKTicketStore network reachability: 1, Mon Aug 26 09:15:45 2024
com.apple.syspolicy Inserting ticket: <private>
com.apple.syspolicy completing lookup: <private>, 0

[and so on with further lookups]
and those are among the only entries from com.apple.syspolicy seen when SIP is disabled.

When full security is enabled, those are completed with
com.apple.syspolicy.exec GK evaluateScanResult: 0, PST: (vuid: 7C5C43BF-A338-4228-B61E-5038F1D93EDB), (objid: 62947), (team: QWY4LRW926), (id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist), (bundle_id: co.eclecticlight.SystHist), 1, 0, 1, 0, 4, 4, 0
But when SIP is disabled, those don’t appear, and seem to be substituted by application of Security rule 11 instead.

The downside of CDHash checks is that their false negative rate can be alarmingly high. Change a single bit in the code being hashed, and the hash will amplify that change, and is completely different. Hence the importance of notarization to establish which CDHashes definitely aren’t from malicious code.

One threat to this system occurs when a user mistakenly blocks their Mac from connecting to Apple’s database using CloudKit, for example using a misconfigured software firewall. Without a suitable vulnerability, malicious software shouldn’t be able to use this approach to block a payload from being checked.

I don’t know whether any third-party security products use a similar checking mechanism with their own local or remote CDHash databases, but this appears to be a great advantage to the protection built into macOS.

Performance

Two of the checks performed with full security enabled are dependent on the size of the app being checked. Fully validating an app’s CDHashes against those in its signature or notarization ticket should benefit from hardware acceleration, particularly on Apple silicon, and can be tackled hierarchically. It appears unlikely to result in significant delays to launching an app.

XProtect scans are more likely to be responsible for observable delays in app launch times, though. With the recent growth in the number of Yara rules, and their length, scans performed after an app’s first launch are the most probable cause of large and complex app bundles requiring several seconds before the app can be run.

Summary

I have updated the flow chart I first proposed as a result of observations made of app launches in Sonoma 14.4.1:

launchsonomaapp2

This is also available as a tear-out PDF here: launchsonomaapp2

I welcome any evidence that will refine and improve that, please.

Previous articles

Launching apps in Sonoma 14.6.1: Full security
Launching apps in Sonoma 14.6.1: Reduced security
Launching apps in Sonoma 14.6.1: Known malware
How does Sonoma check an app before launch? (Sonoma 14.4.1)

❌