[tumult]

Nope. Notarization is not code signing. It’s an extra step, after code signing, where you upload your software to Apple’s servers and wait for their system to approve it. It’s more onerous than code signing alone and, with hindsight, doesn’t seem to have been offering any extra protection.

[jeroenhd]

It's not the same, but in practice it's also not so different. Microsoft keeps track of how many times a certain executable has been run and only after a certain threshold does the executable become openable without hunting for tiny buttons. The kicker: this also applies for signed binaries.

Microsoft will upload these executables to the cloud by default if you use their antivirus engine ("sample collection").

In a way, Microsoft is building the same "notarisarion database", but it's doing so after executables have been released rather than before it. Many vendors and developers will likely add their executables to that "database" by simply running it on a test system.

On the other hand, SmartScreen can be disabled pretty easily, whereas macOS doesn't offer a button to disable notarisarion.

[makeitdouble]

Microsoft's notorisation sounds fully automated and transparent, while Apple's is more political and hands on. Individual apps getting their notorisation slowed down to a glacier pace because the platform owner doesn't like them doesn't seem to happen in Microsoft land.

[layer8]

The important part is that once you have a code signing certificate, you can sign your executable independently, offline, without involvement from Microsoft, which isn’t possible with Apple’s notarization.

[tonyedgecombe]

>It’s more onerous than code signing alone and ...

I don't know, I sometimes contemplated sticking sharpened pencils in my eyes for light relief whilst trying to renew my code signing certificates.

[Earw0rm]

It's more akin to an enforced malware scanner, at least in principle, kind of mandatory VirusTotal with a stapled certificate.

In practice though they use it to turn the screws on various API compliance topics, and I'm not sure how effective it is realistically in terms of preventing malware exploits.

[robenkleene]

> In practice though they use it to turn the screws on various API compliance topics

Do you have an example of this on macOS?

[robenkleene]

> doesn’t seem to have been offering any extra protection.

How would this be measured?

Since no one has pointed it out here, it seems obvious to me that the purpose of the notarization system is mainly to have the code signatures of software so that Apple can remotely disable any malware from running. (Kind of unsavory to some, but probably important in today's world, e.g., with Apple's reach with non-technical users especially?)

Not sure how anyone external to Apple would measure the effectiveness of the system (i.e., without knowing what has been disabled and why).

There's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors in this comment thread, e.g., that notarization on macOS has been deliberately used to block software that isn't malware on macOS. I haven't seen a concrete example of that though?

[tumult]

Disabling malware via hash or signature doesn't require the Notarization step at all. Server can tell clients to not run anything with hash xxyyzz and delete it. I mean, just think about it. If disabling stuff required the Notarization step beforehand, no anti-malware would have existed before Notarization. Nonsense.