Their app is built to Apple specs, and it's not their job to explain or justify them. which leaves one last question: Is there something I can do to prevent the Kensington box from popping up?I don't follow how my point is relevant to your situation, nor can I imagine Kensington's website even remotely dealing with your issue. Being stubborn, and a bit concerned about your point above, I'm going with: "If access ain't needed, why allow it?" They talk about adjusting speeds for scroll, click, double-click.but that's just done with the mouse software anyway. Based on that, I'll guess that with or without its box being checked, any app or function that gets to that pane has got FDA.I've been to Kensington and their site doesn't show that allowing access would provide any more functionality than I already have. It was somehow done from within the app itself. On point, though, I can confidently say that it's not necessary for the FDA box to be checked, because for the longest time, CCC definitely had FDA without its box being checked.without ever sending me to Security & Privacy > Privacy to take action. Still more: I wonder if the CCC and MU "anomalies" weren't that at all, but simply reflections of weaker security in Catalina in which they originated. I don't understand the former, because it deals with functionality that, to my knowledge, I've never used, and I'm taking it on faith that MU has actually got FDA despite, like CCC, its never having asked. More: I've got sshd-keygen-wrapper and Macupdate in FDA, both unchecked. (Any idea why your list formatting wasn't honored?) Based on that, I'll guess that with or without its box being checked, any app or function that gets to that pane has got FDA. It went to "Accessibility" with the broad request "Grant KensingtonWorksHelper" access to your Mac" (without saying what it wants access to)…On point, though, I can confidently say that it's not necessary for the FDA box to be checked, because for the longest time, CCC definitely had FDA without its box being checked.without ever sending me to Security & Privacy > Privacy to take action. If the plutil doesn't not have full disk access, what does that imply about the effectiveness of these other apps when they are supposedly checking property list files? Does Apple know? Do the third party developers know? Can the third party apps override the exclusion? There is no question that is why several well known and widely used third party apps can't get into the App Store. For example plutil is the unix app that checks the syntax of property list files (.plist) and is used in a number of utilities such as OnyX, Cocktail, TinkerTool System, and MacPilot. This leads me to wonder about those Apple apps that are left off of the self authorized list. Which makes sense because without "self authorization" there are lots of bits, parts, and pieces of macOS that would start life disabled and potentially the function to enable the app would also be disabled. That said, it would appear the majority of Apple Apps are "self authorized". They've all "checked themselves in."I just checked Full Disk Access and among the Apple apps that have requested Full Disk Access, but have not "checked themselves in" (if by that you mean authorized themselves by checking the check box) I find. That's true for 3rd party apps, but I've never been asked to authorize an Apple app.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |