Opera code signature query
Comments
-
Oh dear. Luckily, I did not succumb to the lure of updating to the 6.8 release version. I had already experienced problems with the betas, To those of you with a problem, just restore your earlier 1P from Time Machine or other backup. Or you can still download 6.7.1 -well, I did a while back....
Now I want to know whether the code signature problem with Opera is cured with 6.8. I can see that the native messaging is apparently fixed, but will this be OK each time Opera updates itself, or will I have to use Terminal each time? This would really be unsatisfactory.0 -
@littlebobbytables I can't test the Safari problem with 6.8, because I am still using 6.7.1 (OS 10.12.6) and my question about the code signatures with Opera remains unanswered.
0 -
Hi @jhk,
Given your query was lost amongst the people looking for help specifically after updating I've split your posts into their own thread.
The issue with Opera is one of theirs, not ours. 1Password checks to ensure the code signature of the browser is valid but Opera's updater breaks it. We can't fix this, only they can. So I suppose you can say that 1Password 6.8 is no better or worse than 6.7 for Opera. It's probably not what you hoped to hear but this is the current state of working with Opera.
0 -
@littlebobbytables
OK. Not great......
However, 6.7.1 is still not giving me any problem each time Opera is updating itself. I never have to reauthorize anything. Is that because Opera still accepts the websockets protocol at this time?0 -
Hi @jhk,
The browser code signature is separate from WebSockets or native messaging and the check is performed entirely by the 1Password application regardless of the method of communication. I would need to confirm with a developer as it may be 6.8 includes stricter checks but if so that will be tangential to WebSockets versus native messaging. The onus is still on Opera though to be able to pass the signature check so that its legitimacy is verifiable. In an ever increasing hostile world we have to be able to ensure as best we can that nothing has interfered with the browser just as it's the duty of the operating system to do the same with all running processes.
0 -
@littlebobbytables
Well, we are where we are! I could stay on 6.7.1, as it usually does all I need it to do. I bought a standalone license, and am a little worried that this may have to change to a subscription payment. It's not the money, but the worry that this will entail using the cloud to sync, etc. I only want to use my local network on wi-fi, and I have read conflicting reports on what your intentions are for the future. I have an email from you (in the middle of 2016) assuring me that the standalone method of purchasing and working is not going to go away. The sub. way of continuing would be voluntary. However, I note that your website no longer offers a standalone purchase, and so I am concerned that when you go to v7, things will change. The content of the 2016 email is not being adhered to. I have been a customer since 2008 (I think that was my first purchase), and am wondering whether I could be left high and dry if I am not prepared to use the cloud.......0 -
Hi @jhk,
Those are questions I just don't have answers to I'm afraid. The extension side of things keeps me plenty busy so I don't know what our intentions for v7 are and they could easily change as well as we do our best to react to whatever is happening. Those kind of decisions I am quite happy are left with the likes of Dave. All I can say is to keep an eye out and wait for an announcement from him. I know, that doesn't really help but we basically have the same information at the moment.
0
