I think these layers of security against native binaries are a good thing, even though it upsets indie software developers (me included). I used to distribute

I think these layers of security against native binaries are a good thing, even though it upsets indie software developers (me included). I used to distribute some small freeware tools for windows computers for a long time (~10 years). I stopped distributing binaries and only distribute source now (despite the fact that this likely cuts the user base literally to probably 0), because I decided it was simply impossible for me to guarantee the safety of these binaries. I also got hassled by these security measures from MS/Google/etc., but honestly, they're right. I was making non-reproducible builds with dependencies I couldn't fully control on an insecure computer, uploading to a web host that I can't really trust, and letting the binaries sit there for months/years. I used WordPress for a while, and it did get hacked a few times, despite keeping it reasonably up to date. I was first alerted to these hacks by google telling me they found malware on my site and were alerting people to that fact. My first reaction was obviously to be mad at google, but they were right. Eventually I switched to a static website. But even that is hard to be fully confident in. I'm still trusting a cheap web host to keep their Apache (and whatever else) up to date. I bet cpanel is a cesspool of vulnerabilities given how janky I've observed it to be. I suspect some or all of the above is true for the majority of the developers negatively affected by these security measures. If you can actually be fully confident in your whole build and distribution stack, then you can probably easily afford the compliance/certificate costs to meet MS/Google/Apple's requirements to avoid getting flagged by these security measures.