It’s astounding this wasn’t done years sooner to be honest. I mean, signing software with keys is not something invented recently. Not doing so is akin to storing passwords in plain text.
I think they want to, but Microsoft has made it expensive for open source developers who do this as a hobby and not as a job to sign their software. I know not too long ago, this particular dev was asking its users to install a root certificate on their PC so that they wouldn’t have to deal with Microsofts method of signing software, but that kind of backfired on them.
No, because you wouldn’t be able to execute the updated exe without a valid signature. You would essentially brick the install with that method, and probably upset Microsoft’s security software in the process.
Let’s Encrypt is a trusted, established alternative, it could replace Microsoft for long-lived software certificates.
Uh, no it could not.
First of all, the whole point of signing software is to ensure it comes from a reputable source. Let’s Encrypt signs certificates with an automated process that does no verification whatsoever of the identity of the person asking for a certificate. It would make the whole process completely pointless.
Second, Let’s Encrypt has stated themselves over a decade ago that they have no intention of doing this because it would render the whole system pointless.
The point of signing software is to ensure the software was not tampered from the publisher. Linux package managers solve this by comparing a gpg key from the publisher with the software’s. There is no need for a corporate giant to “vet” software.
It’s astounding this wasn’t done years sooner to be honest. I mean, signing software with keys is not something invented recently. Not doing so is akin to storing passwords in plain text.
I think they want to, but Microsoft has made it expensive for open source developers who do this as a hobby and not as a job to sign their software. I know not too long ago, this particular dev was asking its users to install a root certificate on their PC so that they wouldn’t have to deal with Microsofts method of signing software, but that kind of backfired on them.
Yes, but from what I understand this refers to the automatic update functionality and not Microsoft’s own .exe signature verification thing.
Couldn’t you do it like this:
That should work, shouldn’t it?
No, because you wouldn’t be able to execute the updated exe without a valid signature. You would essentially brick the install with that method, and probably upset Microsoft’s security software in the process.
How are they doing it now, then?
Let’s Encrypt is a trusted, established alternative, it could replace Microsoft for long-lived software certificates.
Or tarnish its name associating it with malware and bad actors, who knows?
Uh, no it could not.
First of all, the whole point of signing software is to ensure it comes from a reputable source. Let’s Encrypt signs certificates with an automated process that does no verification whatsoever of the identity of the person asking for a certificate. It would make the whole process completely pointless.
Second, Let’s Encrypt has stated themselves over a decade ago that they have no intention of doing this because it would render the whole system pointless.
The point of signing software is to ensure the software was not tampered from the publisher. Linux package managers solve this by comparing a gpg key from the publisher with the software’s. There is no need for a corporate giant to “vet” software.
Cryptography is hard and programmers are notoriously really really really bad at it.