41–50 of 243 posts
Show clear steps with images on the download page that direct them to click "More Info" to run the app. Eventually the app builds up reputation (at least until the cert expires). How effective would this approach be?
If you aren't signed by an "authority", every user is told by default automatically that your code is unsafe until you pay money.
It is 100% analogous to thugs walking into your store saying "It would be a real shame if something were to happen to scare people away."
The message is "We Protected You" and "Unsafe". WHY? Because "WE don't recognize" it.
Application signing certificates cost money. Always. And if you're making something for free either out of the goodness of your heart or because you like making things, that money has to come out of your pocket just so the thugs don't stand in front of your door with bats. Nobody should be ok with that. AND FUN FACT: malicious or incompetent actors can and do also pay money.
walled gardens ever increasing assault on independent developers never stops. seems microsoft is following Apple's trend of shitting on indies. my take is folks develop your apps to be browser based, if you can. if we can have a browser app, like Figma. a lot of apps, could do. the ones that need to deal with os n files etc, might be non-starter. take your talents to open platforms.
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 -- https://yourbank.real-secure-website.xy can have a valid cert but it doesn't mean it's legitimate. What's the equivalent to the "URL bar" for software? What's the equivalent to the ACME domain validation challenge?
The SmartScreen stuff is another attempt at this -- software that's not frequently seen is flagged as a potential problem. As a developer, this annoys me greatly. As the de-facto support person for family that don't understand computers... I don't mind so much. Without this, malware gets executed directly and now you're dependent on (very imperfect) anti-virus software.
I guess the Store is another way to have "trusted" applications, but you only have to look at the Google Play or iOS store to see how well this ultimately works out (for both malware and legitimate authors).
Note this isn't even about admin vs non-admin installations. Obviously malware running as admin can do more damage that's harder to recover from, but non-admin malware is just as capable of doing bad things (think: stealing credentials, running cryptocurrency miners, ransomware), and after being hit by a randomware attack I doubt your "typical" user is going to really care much about the distinction between their account vs the entire computer being trashed.
On 64 bit versions of Windows, there is no way for me to permanently allow unsigned drivers. Every time I want to install an unsigned driver, I have to reboot my computer while holding down shift, select advanced startup options, and then hit "7" on a USB keyboard which I lug out of the closet because my Bluetooth keyboard won't work. The effect only lasts until the next time I restart.
I understand that the kernel is sensitive, but this is overkill. Please let me install the software I want on my own machine!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I am all for sandboxing by default and scary prompts for anything that doesn't subject itself to strict sandboxing or that tries to break out of it. That doesn't mean apps necessarily have to come from a MS curated store either, just that by default the run in a sandboxed context with access to dick squat on my system. I absolutely hate when I install something like Adobe Acrobat and it installs 18 schedule…
> That doesn't mean apps necessarily have to come from a MS curated store either, just that by default the run in a sandboxed context with access to dick squat on my system. This is absolutely possible. You can distribute your UWP app as an MSIX package[0], which allows side-loading without having to go through the store. The whole experience is actually quite nice and straightforward, UI-wise. [0]: https://docs.micr…
Application signing is a mafia protection racket, plain and simple. If you aren't signed by an "authority", every user is told by default automatically that your code is unsafe until you pay money. It is 100% analogous to thugs walking into your store saying "It would be a real shame if something were to happen to scare people away." The message is "We Protected You" and "Unsafe". WHY? Because "WE don't recognize" it…
Can this be worked around with UX? Show clear steps with images on the download page that direct them to click "More Info" to run the app. Eventually the app builds up reputation (at least until the cert expires). How effective would this approach be?
Not impossible but it's definitely a hassle and probably non-trivial to get right.
Application signing is a mafia protection racket, plain and simple. If you aren't signed by an "authority", every user is told by default automatically that your code is unsafe until you pay money. It is 100% analogous to thugs walking into your store saying "It would be a real shame if something were to happen to scare people away." The message is "We Protected You" and "Unsafe". WHY? Because "WE don't recognize" it…
Then they came for the Windows developers, and I did not speak out, because I wasn't a Windows developer...
I sure wish I could distribute the software I write without paying some rent-collector (at least) $100 for the privilege.
More walled gardens. Hooray. This is why we need WASM and web-first development. If the platforms won't empower us to develop and distribute without levying their tax, we need to take our business back to the open web and spend our money on making it the best platform. Besides, it's a nightmare to have to develop for every single platform when the web is universal. Platforms should pay the cost of making things work…
This is only going to make things worse. If everything is a web application, why would users even need access to their hardware or be able to modify their operating system? Boot from an locked bootloader that only loads a FAANG-signed shim OS, that only loads a FAANG-signed web browser. Next, disallow extensions and ad blockers and we are in the brave new web world were a small number companies more powerful than nation states continuously monitor your behavior for ad impressions.
Sure, now you can install a web browser on your Linux or BSD machine. But once they are in that position, they will make sure that it will be a miserable experience without necessary DRM, disabling or not investing in hardware acceleration, breaking random things on 'unsupported combinations', etc. Moreover, as usual on the web, any competitive player the becomes a threat will be bought by the increasingly large FAANG companies, ending their 'incredible journeys'.
Even though it will probably never happen, what we need is Linux on the desktop, with good native applications, plus a truly open mobile platform.