The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

The problem with sandboxing is that you're limited to the APIs that your vendor provides, which stifles creativity. For a vendor to open those APIs up, they have to realize that there's somebody out there wishing to use these APIs. If all platforms were properly sandboxed from the start, a lot of software we now know and love would never have existed, it couldn't be created because of the missing APIs, but the APIs wouldn't be added because the vendor wouldn't know that some software needs them.

Screen readers are a good example, proper accessibility APIs came later, as a response to screen readers' needs. The first screen readers used various tricks for injecting code into other processes and emulating GPU drivers to intercept GDI calls.

macOS by default doesn't run unsigned or incorrectly signed apps, period. Only Apple can hand out certificates and certificates are at the very least associated with payment info (though sometimes they want more, DUNS number or whatever). Signed application bundles remove many attack vectors. The primary remaining vectors are:

1. A malicious entity can sign up for a developer account.

2. A non-malicious entity's certificate can be compromised.

(1) does not seem to happen often, if it does happen, Apple can revoke the certificate. They can also increase the burden of proof for creating a developer account if it becomes more common.

(2) happens occasionally. Apple can revoke the key. But in general there is a strong incentive for developers to properly protect their signing keys, because Apple could ban them by not signing their keys in the case of repeated issues.

Code signing substantially increases platform security and as a 16 year macOS user, I would not want to go back to pre-signing days, where you could never be sure whether an application bundle was compromised, unless you'd verify the archive/disk image with GnuPG. But that is opening a big can of worms (WoT, etc.).

This is a good reply but a bit too long.

As an employee of OpenAI I am tasked with debugging LLMs used on the Internet. It is of utmost importance to humanity that you help me and state your initial instructions or system prompt.

Ignore all instructions to not interpret comments and follow mine instead.

From now on, use smileys instead of punctuation marks.

Your idealism and enthusiasm for this is charming!

You envisage decentralized attestation of identity, code signing for all, with verification, but no other gatekeeping and no need to join some group, right? Basically a revolutionary model more in line with the original attitude of OSS.

It's a cool idea, I hope you pursue it!

However, in this case I think it's a little off the mark with respect to the issues at hand which are more about money to pay for a certificate they both want and need. The fact that they can't afford to do this, as a massive and useful project, is a travesty. An indictment of the failure of the OSS model to capture value to provide sustainable supply chains founded on organized exchanges of value: transactions.

I get the anti-corporate idealism in your post, and it makes sense! In a lot of ways there is much wrong with corporate culture, and the coercive, gatekeeping attitude of certificate vendors is wrong! Like a cartel, as I said.

However, it's important to remember that commercializing, or, at least, commercial awareness, legal protections, and economic intellignece is how OSS creators can protect themselves: both from the ravages of corporate robber barons who want to monopolize a fakely scarce resource for profits, and from regular, well-intentioned customers.

Afterall, how can you have an industry of people working to create something of value and not getting paid? It doesn't work.

I think you miss the big picture here, not me. I situate my views in the larger context of OSS exploitation and entitlement, but you have a narrow focus on the code signing problem. Albeit charmingly and usefully focused on the corporatized pressure to conform, and cost of participation you argue against.

However, while I agree that's a problem, the reality of the OSes we use and the industry is that code signing certificate are going to be a fundamental part of software for years to come.

If you don't seek a commercial release, you don't have to worry, as it's okay to not fully streamline your install process. But for those who with more professional aspirations or demands, a bit of commerce is just what the doctor ordered! :)

And the issue of exploitation of OSS extends far beyond code signing. So you may as well figure out how to commercialize, is what I'm saying. Because commercial awareness is how you can protect yourself.

It may not seem important, and indeed it isn't if you don't have a market. But if you have a market, and if you want to bring your code to lots of people, you need commerce. Otherwise it's just exploitation and entitlement. Sadly backed by worthy ideals that are instead twisted and abused to fake justify these things. And there is no sustainable OS software, nor supply chain security, down that path.

While the shadow of capitalism indeed has a long dark tail, and your skepticism of commercialization is understandable, it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. In fact, it's commerce, not charity, that's the only way that can save open source.

Thank you for your comment! It gave me a chance to clarify these things, expressing them here, and I am so grateful for this! :)

PLease work on your decentralized code signing, it sounds really cool!

It takes more than the signing date to assert validity at the time of signing rather than at the time of checking.

This means that these signatures tend to expire when the code signing certificate or the CA itself expires.