Live data from Hacker News

The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

github.com

61–70 of 364 posts

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#61

I feel their pain. I built an open source video player for esports coaches[1] that it given away for free and one the constant complaints about it is that users have to bypass warnings when installing it for the first time. I can afford to pay for certificates (I believe I have to have one for Windows and OSX) but I refuse to for a project that I already give away my time for. I would love to see a LetsEncrypt style…

Why does an installer need admin rights though

How could it not? It is adding software to the system software set, accessible by all users of the system.

And many programs require some kind of integration into the OS, such as file type associations or context menu entries, which even a single user shouldn't have access to do.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#62

It’s astonishing that a project as critical and widely used as ImageMagick can’t even scrape together $629 for something as essential as a software signature. It’s a glaring example of how the tech industry fails to financially support the very open-source projects that it relies so heavily upon. Despite offering incredible value, these projects often can’t capture enough of it to sustain themselves. It’s a sobering…

It’s also not clear why the IM project should be paying MS and not the other way round…

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#63
post #22

Compare to codesign, vulnerability management is more concerning. Ubuntu users should know that security patches for ImageMagick are not free! If you do not believe that, read this https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-6393-1 . The security patch is only provided through Ubuntu's Expanded Security Maintenance (ESM) plan, which means you must pay for it. So, seriously, consider having you own build. Then there is no…

What does this have to do with ImageMagick? They don't control the versions packaged by Canonical [0]. The bug you referenced is fixed in upstream, which you can access for free on GitHub.

Ubuntu users on 22.04 LTS or later are also unaffected, because the release came with a version that was already patched [1]. If you upgrade to a newer Ubuntu release, there is no need to pay for ESM.

Your comment makes it sound like the ImageMagick developers want money specifically from Ubuntu users to reveive security patches, which is not true.

[0] https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/discussions/6805#...

[1] https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2022-48541

Edited to add some links.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#64
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does an installer need admin rights though

Unrecognized publisher warning in blue box (not UAC) comes up no matter what the software is when trying to install or run.

This is correct and it usually takes some combination of right clicking the installer or holding shortcuts to bypass. It's not obvious how to do so without Googling around.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#65

It’s astonishing that a project as critical and widely used as ImageMagick can’t even scrape together $629 for something as essential as a software signature. It’s a glaring example of how the tech industry fails to financially support the very open-source projects that it relies so heavily upon. Despite offering incredible value, these projects often can’t capture enough of it to sustain themselves. It’s a sobering…

you see it as a failure of the tech industry to finance open source.

I see it as a failure to provide security systems like this without the need for financial gatekeeping.

$629.00 isn't a trivial amount of money.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#66
post #51

Now that GitHub has CI and MSFT money, it would make so much sense for GitHub to become a code signing CA! With npm, you can opt in to have your npm package releases signed, and it took less than five minutes for me to integrate. As long as the package is published with GitHub Actions (or other supported CIs I guess), you can sign the package and npmjs shows it as well. Git also has release and commit signing with gp…

That's still a single point of failure, so the signing doesn't provide any extra security

All PKI schemes have multiple singular points of failure: the user and system trust stores, the root CAs, the end-entity certificate, the security of all hosts, &c. Singular points of failure aren’t inherently an issue; the bigger concern is how strong each point is.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#67
post #43

Any opinions on this tool? I've literally never heard of it before. Seems like it's good for simple bulk editing.

To explain it succinctly, I shall refer you to XKCD #2347 https://xkcd.com/2347/

Indeed! Remember to hover over the XKCD image to see the punchline.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#68
post #19
post #5

We need a LetsEncrypt for executable signing. Although I suspect Microsoft and Apple are making distributing executables for their platforms costly and inconvenient on purpose in order to drive developers onto their app stores. If that's the case, I guess we'll just have to train users to ignore all the security prompts about unsigned installers (some developers already do).

It's a racket.

Nawh, it's just a Scheme.

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#69

I feel their pain. I built an open source video player for esports coaches[1] that it given away for free and one the constant complaints about it is that users have to bypass warnings when installing it for the first time. I can afford to pay for certificates (I believe I have to have one for Windows and OSX) but I refuse to for a project that I already give away my time for. I would love to see a LetsEncrypt style…

> I would love to see a LetsEncrypt style service for OSS but I assume it's against the core interests of Microsoft / Apple to allow something like this as it would start to drive people away from the walled gardens of the app stores.

People have been asking Let's Encrypt itself for this on the Let's Encrypt forum since the project was founded.

The usual answer is that code signing certificates are (supposedly) trying to attest to a legal identity in the hope of being able to punish people offline if they publish malware, or allow people or organizations to have a policy about only installing software known to be from a certain list of publishers. DV certificates for HTTPS are trying to attest to control of a name in the DNS, which is verifiable by automated technical means, and which is not necessarily related to offline identity. (ICANN says it should be ... in an indirect way ... which isn't always complied with, and which, following increased pressure from European privacy law, is often not visible to the public.)

A Let's Encrypt certificate would confirm that a certain key is apparently controlled by someone who apparently also controls a certain DNS name. But a code signing certificate would supposedly go further and confirm that it's apparently controlled by someone acting on behalf of a certain named legal person existing in a certain jurisdiction. This is much more expensive to verify usefully, although maybe some governments will eventually have a way to automate it.

This isn't to say that either kind of certificate is necessarily ideal for all of the different uses to which relying parties end up putting it nowadays, but just that what they're attesting to, and how you would verify it, is pretty different.

Edit: There seems to be a longer discussion about related points in this thread already at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38056024

Re: The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

#70

This might be a misunderstanding on my part, but why does the ImageMagick code-signing certificate need to meet CA/B Forum requirements? My understanding is that those requirements apply primarily to the Web PKI, and not other PKIs or certificate profiles like Authenticode. (Regardless, vendor-specific code-signing schemes are a racket.)

There is no institution like the CA/B Forum. Everyone uses their certs.
Post reply on HN