71–80 of 526 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the point? How would you prevent malware from being signed? Currently, code signatures are used as a signal for trustworthiness of the code.
Is it some entirely different process than providing hashes and a GPG signature?
This is the same problem I'm currently facing with WireGuard. No warning at all, no notification. One day I sign in to publish an update, and yikes, account suspended. Currently undergoing some sort of 60 days appeals process, but who knows. That's kind of crazy: what if there were some critical RCE in WireGuard, being exploited in the wild, and I needed to update users immediately? (That's just hypothetical; don't f…
I am astounded that the maintainer and inventor of Wireguard is in this position. Microsoft even supports Wireguard in Azure Kubernetes Service.
Who cares if it's OSI-approved or not, a line saying "M$, Google, and the like need written permission for every use case" would help to make those leeches honest. Just learn from the JSLint example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but isn't the point of these certificates to express trust ? The point isn't (or: shouldn't be) to forcefully find your way through some back alley to make it look legit. It's to certify that the software is legit. Trust goes both ways: we ought to trust Microsoft to act as a responsible CA. Obfuscating why they revoked trust (as is apparently the case) and leaving the phone ringing is hurting trust in MS as a C…
who on planet earth trusts a piece of software because Microsoft signed it?
It's perhaps naive, but could he create a new organisation, like a "TotallyNotVeraCrypt" French loi 1901 association, at a different address, and create a new microsoft account by making sure it passes all the requirements.
Probably not French though, give how hostile it appears to be to encryption/security related projects (GrapheneOS had a good arguments re: that)
Seems rather clear that he doesn't want French jurisdiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now this is even more alarming! Wireguard's creator has their Microsoft account suspended... Microsoft doesn't want to allow software that would allow the user to shield themselves, either by totally encrypting a drive, or by encrypting their network traffic!
Or more likely, some automated security system flagged popular but suspicious apps for further review.
This is the same problem I'm currently facing with WireGuard. No warning at all, no notification. One day I sign in to publish an update, and yikes, account suspended. Currently undergoing some sort of 60 days appeals process, but who knows. That's kind of crazy: what if there were some critical RCE in WireGuard, being exploited in the wild, and I needed to update users immediately? (That's just hypothetical; don't f…
I wouldn’t be surprised if NSA already had a list of these applications and the strategies on how to cripple them or worse, compromise them.
This is the same problem I'm currently facing with WireGuard. No warning at all, no notification. One day I sign in to publish an update, and yikes, account suspended. Currently undergoing some sort of 60 days appeals process, but who knows. That's kind of crazy: what if there were some critical RCE in WireGuard, being exploited in the wild, and I needed to update users immediately? (That's just hypothetical; don't f…
I am astounded that the maintainer and inventor of Wireguard is in this position. Microsoft even supports Wireguard in Azure Kubernetes Service.
I am somewhat also concerned that this software was still being distributed on SourceForge.
I am somewhat also concerned that this software was still being distributed on SourceForge.