Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

getimageview.net

121–130 of 243 posts

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#121
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, honestly, that's what getting an SSL cert used to be like 15 years ago. They can knock it all they want, but really, the process functioned pretty much as expected. Like a lock on your front door, the purpose is not to prevent unwanted people from ever getting inside (no lock will ever accomplish that), but to both make it take long enough the likelihood of being noticed is high, and to put enough hurdles in plac…

Funny how Let’s Encrypt is so popular because it doesn’t inconvenience people, and as a result more websites than ever have been secured, to the betterment of society.

That's because the purpose of SSL encryption changed. It used to be primarily to protect payment information and sometimes also used for logins, but it was considered too heavy for all traffic in the past. Now it's used primarily to ensure all traffic is secure, and payment is along for the ride.

In the past you used to be fairly sure a company was somewhat legitimate and responsible if they has an SSL cert and could supply card information to them without too much worry, as someone had vetted them as a real company (to some degree). These days, that doesn't happen, and whether I'm willing to give a company my credit card has nothing to do with if they are secured with a cert (which is a bare minimum to use the site). That cert doesn't really imply much anymore though. These days, I'll only enter my card into large reputable sites, or if they are using a payment service I trust (PayPal, Amazon, Square, etc), as they've presumably done a lot of the vetting that the SSL companies traditionally did.

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#122

I asked the MSIX team about code signing at Build recently, they said they will be previewing "Azure Trust Service" this summer which makes code signing easier: https://twitter.com/jvintzel/status/1262794128351322114 The current code signing situation on Windows is painful. It's especially galling how the code signing requirements apply to modern sandboxed Windows applications as well - an MSIX-packaged application w…

I think there's an argument to be made that sandboxing shouldn't exempt you from security restrictions. Unless the sandbox is entirely impossible to penetrate (making apps borderline useless), a malicious app still has many opportunities to trick the user or exploit security vulnerabilities. Revocable signing certificates are a useful tool for fighting back against hostile actors.

The certs should be much cheaper, though, and it would make sense for sandboxed applications to perhaps be easier to sign.

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#123

> “Developers, developers, developers!” was a cry from Steve Ballmer and one of the speeches that defined him as CEO of Microsoft. These infamous words were uttered back in 2006. The famous YouTube video of it was uploaded in 2006, but my sources say the event in question was from Microsoft's 25th Anniversary Event in September 2000. I could use a more authoritative source than knowyourmeme, though, so someone else i…

Well the message is now "get off our platform so we can switch it off". Everything Microsoft does goes in the direction of phasing out Windows.

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#124
post #105
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, yes, so we're supposed to believe that malware outfits bringing in millions of dollars a year in illicit profit can't afford to set up front organizations. And it doesn't even have to be fake! You could be Zoom! Or Avast! Or Trend Micro! Or Sony! Or Lenovo! The only person in this story who doesn't have a business address is me.

What usually happens is that legitimate certificates are stolen.

What usually happens is that "legitimate" software distributors aren't. Just read the GP again.

Second to that, it's that people set the information up so that they'll mislead your verification processes just enough to pass.

Certificates stolen are way down from that.

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#125
post #44

I get the sentiment here, it's very annoying for developers (including me). Establishing trust is very hard problem, though. Let's move this to a productive conversation though. What can Microsoft do, as an alternative, that doesn't result in an identical or worse situation? Giving out free code-signing certificates also makes it easier for malware to get legitimate certificates. This is akin to LetsEncrypt for certs…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#126
post #24

I recently went through this pain for an electron app. Non-EV code sign cert kept throwing SmartScreen warnings for most users. Acquiring an EV cert forced me to register a company and a hefty cert price per year, overall costing nearly $1500. Not to mention overall delay and added costs. Meanwhile my $100/y Apple Dev subscription was enough to package the app and distribute outside App Store. At this point I am fair…

I'm not seeing any requirement to have a registered company? DigiCerts checkout process says to use your own legal name if you don't have a legal business name.

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#128
post #91
post #44

I get the sentiment here, it's very annoying for developers (including me). Establishing trust is very hard problem, though. Let's move this to a productive conversation though. What can Microsoft do, as an alternative, that doesn't result in an identical or worse situation? Giving out free code-signing certificates also makes it easier for malware to get legitimate certificates. This is akin to LetsEncrypt for certs…

Microsoft can give out free code-signing certificates like LetsEncrypt, but bind publisher reputation to the domain name, rather than to a particular public key or certificate. In such way, malware makers won't be able to build up enough reputation, because they will have to switch domain names often (and legit software publishers won't be subjects to extortion by Code Signing CAs). Regarding domain expiry problem, t…

This enforces a "developers-must-own-and-continue-to-own-a-domain". Not saying that's bad, but it needs to be considered. for eg A lot of software these days is built and served entirely from GitHub.

You could even end up re-using domain-name-signals from existing spam datasets (whois, hosting provider, age etc).

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#129
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, Bonzi Buddy might not be the best example, but you get his point. People just click through dialogs to close them without thinking about what they are clicking.

You don't get to handwave away a clear fallacy with "ok but you get the point". _My_ point is that the point is false, not that the example is bad. If Bonzi Buddy can just buy their way into your computer, then this does not save you. From anything. Because real malicious actors like Bonzi Buddy can just buy their way in!

I don't think this is just a hypothetical either; if I remember rightly, a lot of the really obnoxoius unwanted software from that era was signed with valid, purchased signing certificates in order to encourage people to install it via ActiveX.

Re: Microsoft Defender SmartScreen is hurting independent developers

#130
All the open source developers/publishers here should get together and pitch in to get one long lasting certificate to sign all of their respective binaries (of course, really important that they vet each other's code, so has to be open source) Edit: typo.
Post reply on HN