I have successfully installed VirtualBox 6.0.8 on macOS 10.14.5 without resorting to Recovery mode, but its kernel extensions don’t appear to have been notarized at all, despite being signed after Apple’s deadline. On closer investigation, though, it isn’t as simple as that. My assumption was that the kernel extensions shipped in VirtualBox 6.0.8 had not been notarized, and it was the first casualty of this change in Mojave’s security policy. The last group of characters is Oracle’s Developer ID.įollowing restarting normally, most users found that VirtualBox 6.0.8 then installed correctly, and could be used. Those trying to install VirtualBox 6.0.8 quickly ran into trouble, reporting that it failed when the Mac had been updated to 10.14.5.Ī workaround was quickly posted to user forums, to restart in Recovery mode and enter the following code in Terminal there: But the day after that update was released, Oracle released a new version of VirtualBox, its popular virtualisation environment. When Apple released the 10.14.5 update, there was no mention of any of this in its release notes, nor can I find any advice it has provided to users about these changes. developers who hadn’t signed products before that same date. for all software signed by new developers, i.e.for all new and updated kernel extensions signed from 7 April.Then early in the beta-releases of macOS 10.14.5, back in April, Apple suddenly warned developers that notarization would be compulsory in 10.14.5 for two classes of software: Everyone assumed that meant macOS 10.15, due to be detailed in a few days at this year’s WWDC, and expected to ship this autumn/fall.Īlthough notarization is free, take-up by developers seems to have been quite slow. For the time being, this was to be an option, but in a future release of macOS, it would become mandatory for all Mac software distributed over the Internet but outside the App Store. This article examines how this could trip you up, as it already has done for many users who tried to install Oracle’s VirtualBox 6.0.8.Īt last year’s WWDC, almost exactly a year ago, Apple told developers that it was introducing a new system in which they could submit apps to Apple’s Notary Service, which would check and approve them, certifying them as ‘notarized’. This feels stupid to me, because if the wrong sequence of installation happen, then we have to run the DisplayLink uninstaller (restart required), and the reinstall DisplayLink 5.2 (another restart).Īnyone else experience this for their Mojave 10.14.As the dust settles on the recent Mojave 10.14.5 update, I’ve been looking at its undocumented change in the way that it handles kernel extensions.

If I was to apply Kernel Extension first, then install DisplayLink 5.2, then it is fine again. In both these scenarios, DisplayLink still worked as long as Kernel Extension has been applied.īut for macOS Mojave 10.14.6, If I was to install DisplayLink 5.2 before Kernel Extension was allowed. 2) I installed DisplayLink after the Kernel Extension was allowed. For this testing, I had 2 cases: 1) I installed DisplayLink before the Kernel Extension was allowed.

I had previously installed DisplayLink 5.2 onto a Macbook running macOS Mojave 10.14.5. DisplayLink 5.2 has been available since early July. Mojave 10.14.6 is just been made available yesterday.

Just my observation of macOS Mojave 10.14.6 and the installation of DisplayLink 5.2.

Macos mojave 10.14.5