or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper to bring optional app restrictions to OS X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper to bring optional app restrictions to OS X

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
The new behind-the-scenes Gatekeeper security feature in the upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion is one of the most anticipated additions to the operating system upgrade Apple unveiled on Thursday because it provides users with additional security options for installing and running third-party applications.

Apple announced early Thursday plans to release a major update to its desktop OS annual, with the first of said updates set to arrive this summer in the form of OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion.

Among the 100+ features that will be built into the new software, Apple has placed special focus on ensuring Mac security. The addition of Gatekeeper is one of the primary ways that plays out.

According to Apple, Gatekeeper is built to help prevent users from "unknowingly downloading and installing malicious software." Mountain Lion will allow users to select from three security options for running newly downloaded apps. The highest level of security only allows applications from the Mac App Store, not unlike Apple's restrictions for iOS devices and third-party applications on the App Store.

The default level of security will allow applications downloaded from the Mac App Store and "identified developers." Apple is instituting a new Developer ID Program that will allow developers to apply for a free-of-charge unique digital ID for signing applications. That signature will then communicate with Gatekeeper to ensure that new applications are clean and have not been tampered with.




Digital signatures will be created "by combining a secret key known only to the developer with a digital summary of the contents of the application," Apple explained on a page dedicated to new security features in Mountain Lion. The resulting signature will then be "wrapped together" in an encrypted file within the app and will be checked by Gatekeeper.

The lowest security option is to allow applications downloaded from any source to be opened. Gatekeeper will warn users if apps don't have Developer IDs associated with them. Jim Dalrymple of The Loop, who spent a week with a preview copy of OS X Mountain Lion, reported that applications triggered by Gatekeeper can still be manually installed or opened by Control-clicking an app and choosing Open.




Daring Fireball's John Gruber called Gatekeeper his favorite feature in Mountain Lion, despite the fact that it "hardly even has a visible interface." He praised the default setting as being "exactly right," noting that it is a win for both users and developers. Gruber expressed hope that the feature will one day make its way into iOS.

Dalrymple also agreed that the default setting was the "best choice" since he imagines all the apps he uses will be signed by a Developer ID. "Using this setting I can download apps from a developer’s Web site and install it without any issues, but still be safe," he said.

Gatekeeper builds upon a malware detection and removal feature that was built into Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Last year, Apple updated the security feature to detect the MAC Defender malware that pretended to be anti-virus software in hopes of tricking users into providing payment information.

Though the number of malicious applications on the Mac OS X platform still pales in comparison to its long-time rival Windows, the rising sales of the Mac have begun to negate the argument that its small market share would keep it safe from threats. According to one analysis from last month, Mac OS faced 58 malicious software threats during the last three quarters of 2011.\t

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 48
DOOM. BEGINNING OF THE END. WALLED GARDEN. NO APPLICATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES ALLOWED AT ALL IN 10.9. APPLE IS KILLING DEVELOPERS.

What else, what else what haven't I covered?

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #3 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

DOOM. BEGINNING OF THE END. WALLED GARDEN. NO APPLICATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES ALLOWED AT ALL IN 10.9. APPLE IS KILLING DEVELOPERS.

What else, what else what haven't I covered?

android is the future of desktop OS, apple better start using it like they did with windows.
can you imagine how snappier safari will be in mountain lion?

is this good enough?

BTW, what is happening to the stock?
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


BTW, what is happening to the stock?

Big money trading on technical charts. Pump and dump. Profit taking on it crossing into 500 territory. Not much to see there, it'll bounce back. Welcome to Wall St.
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #5 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


BTW, what is happening to the stock?

Chance to buy more. $1000 in 2 years when every electronic device in your home and pocket is an Apple.
post #6 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

DOOM. BEGINNING OF THE END. WALLED GARDEN. NO APPLICATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES ALLOWED AT ALL IN 10.9. APPLE IS KILLING DEVELOPERS.

What else, what else what haven't I covered?

Users get a scary message that their Mac is less secure if they change the default gatekeeper setting, making anything outside the walled garden seem illegitimate or questionable at least.
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Big money trading on technical charts. Pump and dump. Profit taking on it crossing into 500 territory. Not much to see there, it'll bounce back. Welcome to Wall St.

IOW, it continues to tank.
post #8 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

Users get a scary message that their Mac is less secure if they change the default gatekeeper setting, making anything outside the walled garden seem illegitimate or questionable at least.

It's arguable that any app developer that isn't signing their work actually *is* "illegitimate or questionable."

All this means is that if the developer is an amateur or worse, actually out to do harm, then you will have to click twice more to install the product.

Microsoft Office makes you click twice as much as that already just to install Word and they are (supposedly), reliable developers with certificates.
post #9 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Microsoft Office makes you click twice as much as that already just to install Word and they are (supposedly), reliable developers with certificates.

"Warning: this program may devour RAM, cause endless frustration due to a cumbersome user-interface, and may be incompatible with previous and more commonly used versions. Do you wish to allow or disallow?

ALLOW DISALLOW"
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's arguable that any app developer that isn't signing their work actually *is* "illegitimate or questionable."

All this means is that if the developer is an amateur or worse, actually out to do harm, then you will have to click twice more to install the product.

Microsoft Office makes you click twice as much as that already just to install Word and they are (supposedly), reliable developers with certificates.

We have to see what the terms are for receiving and maintaining a signing key from Apple. They could easily refuse to give you or revoke your key if you distribute apps that Apple doesn't like. And they might even ban you for life for whatever reason. I'm just speculating, we should give Apple the benefit of the doubt for now, but look carefully at the terms and details when they are available.
post #11 of 48
I like this feature. MacRumors showed a screenshot that says you can allow individual apps by control-click and open even when "From Everywhere" is not selected.
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by techguy911 View Post

We have to see what the terms are for receiving and maintaining a signing key from Apple. They could easily refuse to give you or revoke your key if you distribute apps that Apple doesn't like. And they might even ban you for life for whatever reason. I'm just speculating, we should give Apple the benefit of the doubt for now, but look carefully at the terms and details when they are available.

Based on Apple website, the Developer ID is only used to verify that the app is not malware and the app hasn't been tampered with. Apple will not be checking apps to make sure they meet specific standards. There is no "submit" and no approval process for any app.

Quote:
A developers digital signature allows Gatekeeper to verify that their app is not known malware and that it hasnt been tampered with.
post #13 of 48
Mark mine and other's words. This panic over security and privacy will give way to whining and complaints about usability and functionality after panicked users say no to every data request

"This app would like to use your current location. WARNING! Saying yes may compromise your privacy."

User: Well NO then.

Call to Apple tech support: "This P.O.S. device of yours can't find any restaurants around me. WTF, I paid good money for this junk and it doesn't work. I'm calling my lawyer and I'm gonna sue your asses off. I want my money back or ELSE."

Support tech: "sigh........"
post #14 of 48
It does not sound like a major feature requiring new OS build. Why can't this be add-on to Lion or even to Snow Leopard?

Oh I got it... beacuse I need to buy new computer from Apple to make sure revenue is okay.


I was hoping that foolish installer check on hardware codes could be skipped to allow to upgrade OS (some managed this with tricks and it works fine). Some of us upgraded Core Duo to Core 2 Duo and 64-bit apps work fine (not kernel as it is in 32-bit mode).

I think I will be forced to upgrade those few computers when this new cat comes, but I hope it will not be the quality of Lion/Windows Vista.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

android is the future of desktop OS, apple better start using it like they did with windows.
can you imagine how snappier safari will be in mountain lion?

is this good enough?

BTW, what is happening to the stock?

Safari is not snappier because Apple chose logic of rendering being deferred to loading all content first. I consider this excessive and annoying. Your best bet for improvement is to get faster Internet (and faster content providers... like if you could fix that problem).

I am in between using Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Camino and Opera... while I should need only one.
post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

It does not sound like a major feature requiring new OS build. Why can't this be add-on to Lion or even to Snow Leopard?

Oh I got it... beacuse I need to buy new computer from Apple to make sure revenue is okay.

Or you can upgrade to Mountain Lion and get the new features. You will have to get used to pay $29 a year if you want to get the latest OS X feature. I personally don't mind. I spend double that on full tank of gas.
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Or you can upgrade to Mountain Lion and get the new features. You will have to get used to pay $29 a year if you want to get the latest OS X feature. I personally don't mind. I spend double that on full tank of gas.

Exactly. Kids these days with their iOS devices and their YouTubes and their social networkings

Back in my day, we paid $129 for our OS updates and we DIDN'T BAT AN EYE. Whining about $30 once a year for a new OS when you pay, as was said, TWICE that for gas multiple times a month is ludicrous.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

It does not sound like a major feature requiring new OS build. Why can't this be add-on to Lion or even to Snow Leopard?

Oh I got it... beacuse I need to buy new computer from Apple to make sure revenue is okay.


I was hoping that foolish installer check on hardware codes could be skipped to allow to upgrade OS (some managed this with tricks and it works fine). Some of us upgraded Core Duo to Core 2 Duo and 64-bit apps work fine (not kernel as it is in 32-bit mode).

I think I will be forced to upgrade those few computers when this new cat comes, but I hope it will not be the quality of Lion/Windows Vista.

cry me a river. you don't really have to buy a new computer, just fork out $25 for the upgrade. troll much? better yet, quit your whining and stay with lion.
post #19 of 48
It's amazing people are complaining about Apple giving us an option to install a new version of OS X.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #20 of 48
I guess I'm going to be in the minority but I think Apple's approach on this is perfect.

If you want to download anything then click that box. But defaulting to MAS and trusted developers will enhance security and that just makes for a better end user experience.
post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I guess I'm going to be in the minority but I think Apple's approach on this is perfect.

If you want to download anything then click that box. But defaulting to MAS and trusted developers will enhance security and that just makes for a better end user experience.

Agreed. I also think that if Apple were to implement this feature in iOS, it would pretty much kill jailbreaking for good. At that point, the only reason to jailbreak would be to pirate apps, and I doubt any of the current dev team would be interested in making jailbreaks solely for that purpose. Maybe this will come to the iPhone in iOS 6?
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDevil View Post

Agreed. I also think that if Apple were to implement this feature in iOS, it would pretty much kill jailbreaking for good. At that point, the only reason to jailbreak would be to pirate apps, and I doubt any of the current dev team would be interested in making jailbreaks solely for that purpose. Maybe this will come to the iPhone in iOS 6?

What would be Apple's motivation? Their current iOS model is working fine, better than fine.

I'm sure they'd rather take the same approach to OS X, but because it isn't built from the ground up like iOS and has legacy users, they can't be that dramatic. This is the next best thing.
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Mark mine and other's words. This panic over security and privacy will give way to whining and complaints about usability and functionality after panicked users say no to every data request

"This app would like to use your current location. WARNING! Saying yes may compromise your privacy."

User: Well NO then.

Call to Apple tech support: "This P.O.S. device of yours can't find any restaurants around me. WTF, I paid good money for this junk and it doesn't work. I'm calling my lawyer and I'm gonna sue your asses off. I want my money back or ELSE."

Support tech: "sigh........"

I don't understand the hubbub regarding location data. Who cares if someone knows where I was? I'm probably not still there, unless it's my home (and that's listed in the phone book).

Much more concerning is contact info (since sensitive info is often stored there, because people were under the illusion it was private), and provides much less benefit in exchange for a lack of privacy (location at least makes searching a lot easier, contact info is basically good for playing "...with friends".
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDevil View Post

Agreed. I also think that if Apple were to implement this feature in iOS, it would pretty much kill jailbreaking for good. At that point, the only reason to jailbreak would be to pirate apps, and I doubt any of the current dev team would be interested in making jailbreaks solely for that purpose. Maybe this will come to the iPhone in iOS 6?

Lol, you're moving in the wrong direction. I'll eat my shoe if they enable non App Store apps in iOS 6. Though I think they should do that, there are downsides. If everyone starts turning off the protection and downloads apps from wherever, there could be a big trojan/infection issue on the devices. And of course Apple will get the blame and claims that their platform is insecure and virus prone, it's already happening on OSX.
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

IOW, it continues to tank.

Unfortunately for you it is not.
post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

It does not sound like a major feature requiring new OS build. Why can't this be add-on to Lion or even to Snow Leopard?

Oh I got it... beacuse I need to buy new computer from Apple to make sure revenue is okay.


I was hoping that foolish installer check on hardware codes could be skipped to allow to upgrade OS (some managed this with tricks and it works fine). Some of us upgraded Core Duo to Core 2 Duo and 64-bit apps work fine (not kernel as it is in 32-bit mode).

I think I will be forced to upgrade those few computers when this new cat comes, but I hope it will not be the quality of Lion/Windows Vista.

It's probably because they're not actively adding new features to Snow Leopard, and moving from Lion to Mountain Lion will (assuming the trend continues) run $29 and give you better integration of a slew of other features with your iOS phone/pad.

It sounds like a great middle ground - signed, but not walled. The walled part is very restrictive in terms of sandboxing, so this should be the pretty-well-trusted but full-featured alternative that covers the other 99% of legit apps. (Wonder if Apple will be able to revoke the certs in cases where someone turns out to ship malware?)

Anyway, this feels more like what Lion should have been - maybe that's why it's Mountain Lion (as Snow Leopard was mostly optimizations to Leopard). Looks promising at first glance.
post #27 of 48
Apple won't ever do this with iOS. What they WILL do is continue to add APIs until you can SAFELY do with apps in the App Store everything safe that you can do with apps via jailbreaking.

And THAT is how they'll make it pointless. Eventually there will truly not be any reason to jailbreak other than to pirate.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #28 of 48
GK = best solution to the problem of Trojans and other Malware.

Maximum security = Mac App Store

Good security - Signed apps

Less security - Unsigned apps.


We all are computer enthusiasts so we're more versed in what and where to go than rank and file consumers or the children of said consumers. GK allows them to choose multiple sources for their apps yet still feel secure in knowing that no malware riders are coming along. Winning
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 48
Oh no! Apple has added options, while taking nothing away! Those big meanies!
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple won't ever do this with iOS. What they WILL do is continue to add APIs until you can SAFELY do with apps in the App Store everything safe that you can do with apps via jailbreaking.

And THAT is how they'll make it pointless. Eventually there will truly not be any reason to jailbreak other than to pirate.

They're already most of the way there. The Android folks like to describe using Apple devices like being in a locked down jail, you're suffering a horrible existence not able to do anything. Maybe someone can post some things we're missing out on that non-rooted Android devices can do. I have 2 Android phones and a Xoom tablet I use for development and I haven't been blown away by any amazing new things I can do with them to make me realize I was suffering all these years.
post #31 of 48
It's not this new option to disallow signed apps/ID'd devs that worries me, it's the possibility of a future OS X version that removes the option and simply disallows unsigned apps. I want choice, and I'd be naive if I believed that Apple would never deny approving a dev for something other than malware reasons.

We've seen it with iOS already, an app that doesn't do anything malicious, but does something that goes against apple's agreements with others (ie- tethering apps not allowed because of deals with carriers), and suddenly *I* can't do something with MY computer that isn't anyone else's business and shouldn't be subject to whatever agreement between apple and whoever that I certainly never agreed to.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to be all "the sky is falling", I'm just trying to take a look at past and present trends to extrpolate where the OS might be going.
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo View Post

It's not this new option to disallow signed apps/ID'd devs that worries me, it's the possibility of a future OS X version that removes the option and simply disallows unsigned apps. I want choice, and I'd be naive if I believed that Apple would never deny approving a dev for something other than malware reasons.

We've seen it with iOS already, an app that doesn't do anything malicious, but does something that goes against apple's agreements with others (ie- tethering apps not allowed because of deals with carriers), and suddenly *I* can't do something with MY computer that isn't anyone else's business and shouldn't be subject to whatever agreement between apple and whoever that I certainly never agreed to.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to be all "the sky is falling", I'm just trying to take a look at past and present trends to extrpolate where the OS might be going.

You cannot extrapolate much here. Apple curates their Mac App Store but they don't curate app outside of the store. All they ask is that you sign your apps with a developer ID. They're not allowing nor preventing any features other than you proving that your app

A. Comes from you
B. Does not have any malware injected

Everything else is just a slippery slope logical fallacy.

There's absolutely no way to explain GateKeeper to a sane and logical human and not have them understand the benefits.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #33 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I guess I'm going to be in the minority but I think Apple's approach on this is perfect.

If you want to download anything then click that box. But defaulting to MAS and trusted developers will enhance security and that just makes for a better end user experience.

Aha, but not everything is black and white. White is today, no restrictions. Black is a complete unbreakable ban on non app store non signed apps, which I think Apple won't do. But, where does one draw the line?

Going into settings as administrator and enabling? Mountain Lion

Opening terminal and entering some obscure command line entries? Mountain Lion +1 or +2?

Opening some system level files in a text editor and changing some lines?

Downloading some new system files from a website and replacing them in the root level file system?

Booting with a specially made bootable CD to make changes to the system to allow it?

Sure us technical people will still have control over our systems, but once you go past an easy switch or informative popup helping you turn off the option, it effectively ends for most users. Probably ending the non-app store market.
post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Based on Apple website, the Developer ID is only used to verify that the app is not malware and the app hasn't been tampered with. Apple will not be checking apps to make sure they meet specific standards. There is no "submit" and no approval process for any app.

But if you use unpublished APIs or do something else down the road Apple doesn't like can they revoke your developer ID? Do you have to have an internet connection the first time you launch an application to get it validated (the description sounds like no)? Apple has a history of tinkering with the developer agreement for iOS, and not always in good ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo View Post

It's not this new option to disallow signed apps/ID'd devs that worries me, it's the possibility of a future OS X version that removes the option and simply disallows unsigned apps. I want choice, and I'd be naive if I believed that Apple would never deny approving a dev for something other than malware reasons.

We've seen it with iOS already, an app that doesn't do anything malicious, but does something that goes against apple's agreements with others (ie- tethering apps not allowed because of deals with carriers), and suddenly *I* can't do something with MY computer that isn't anyone else's business and shouldn't be subject to whatever agreement between apple and whoever that I certainly never agreed to.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to be all "the sky is falling", I'm just trying to take a look at past and present trends to extrpolate where the OS might be going.

Overall I think it's a good thing; but at the same time, like you, I'm wary about how much further Apple will take it in future versions of the OS.
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

But if you use unpublished APIs or do something else down the road Apple doesn't like can they revoke your developer ID? Do you have to have an internet connection the first time you launch an application to get it validated (the description sounds like no)? Apple has a history of tinkering with the developer agreement for iOS, and not always in good ways.

If Apple wanted to do that then why even offer it?! You guys are not making any sense. They could have put two options (Mac App Store or Everywhere). But they didn't. They offer a middle grounds that is Developer IDs. No app store limitation. No API limitations. No revenue sharing. The only disadvantage is that developers don't have access to iCloud and PN services.
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You will have to get used to pay $29 a year

THey have't mentioned a price. It could actually be less.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

THey have't mentioned a price. It could actually be less.

I suppose it could be a different price but it never occurred to me that it wouldn't be $29 per household.

With the rate of Mac growth and the ease of purchase afforded by the Mac App Store I bet they really could make this $9.99 and still make more money than with Lion.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #38 of 48
It's not too much to ask people to sign their work. Of course, that doesn't guarantee it's safe, it just gives you someone to blame. But not even that, because an originally clean app could later be compromised by malware. If I was a dev, I would implement sandbox at the same time as I sign my app.
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by techguy911 View Post

Aha, but not everything is black and white. White is today, no restrictions. Black is a complete unbreakable ban on non app store non signed apps, which I think Apple won't do. But, where does one draw the line?
.

But I think it is black and white and I think Apple will and should break non signed apps if a user chooses to only have MAS store and signed apps on their computer.

But this is a good compromise for users like me who have apps, MacPractice and SpringCharts EHR, that are not and likely will not ever show up in the MAS. But these developers will almost assuredly apply for the digital ID and have signed apps. Their business model does not work for MAS store distribution.

I see this as great sign as it gives some flexibility to developers who have niche applications, usually enterprise in nature, that aren't amenable to MAS store distribution. How do you sell client/server applications by the number of users via the MAS? Its heartening to me to see that these developers aren't going to be pushed off the Mac platform.
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

It's not too much to ask people to sign their work. Of course, that doesn't guarantee it's safe, it just gives you someone to blame. But not even that, because an originally clean app could later be compromised by malware. If I was a dev, I would implement sandbox at the same time as I sign my app.

Yeah I'm disappointed that GK isn't more capable of nuking malware. I wish that GK was capable of disabling an application that initially has a signature stamp but was later found to be malware.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper to bring optional app restrictions to OS X