3 ms·

> Windows? I know you can sign Windows executables, but why would anyone want to? I have Windows 11 on a VM. It runs unsigned executables just fine and, unlike

by sbuk 4y ago

> Windows? I know you can sign Windows executables, but why would anyone want to? I have Windows 11 on a VM. It runs unsigned executables just fine and, unlike macOS, doesn't treat them like they're radioactive. You just get a differently-colored confirmation window if you run them as administrator. It ought to! I'd love to see this in Linux and the BSD's too. Signing applications and binaries should be the norm. > And before Let's Encrypt and other similar free automatic CAs came along, SSL/TLS was very niche. Let's Encrypt came about to help with security. Happy to hear arguments pro a similar service for application signing, but it will have to follow similar, or tighter restrictions and you'd still be at the whim of third party. > I like Android's security model better. You sign your apk with a self-signed certificate. That is most definitely not a security policy. Self-signing is no different to not signing at all. There is no provenance, no chain-of-trust.

0ct4via 4y ago
Absolutely this.
grishka 4y ago
> There is no provenance, no chain-of-trust. We should've probably started with the fact that I despise security policies based on provenance, chains of trust, public key infrastructure, and third parties. This kind of "security" feels extremely fragile and unnecessarily centralized. We somehow live with how SSH identifies servers by their keys, with no third-party verification, and consider that an okay level of security. Why can't we use the same approach for TLS and for executable signatures? What's so fundamentally different that third parties are required in these cases?
- sbuk 4y ago
  SSH doesn’t rely on PKI. Using SSH certificates is a password replacement for accessing remote services. While it is a kind of identity verification, its purpose is not the same an application signing. Self signing is open to too much abuse. The whole point of signing is that the provenance can be verified (yes, checksums are a thing) and that the signing can be revoked should something bad happen. Notarising code is the process of a third party verifying your identity. So rather than saying, “hey, you can trust me”, you are asking a third party to vet and prove that you are trustworthy. If you can’t see the value in that for all parties - including the most important party, your customers - then that’s up to you. No sane SOC will allow unsigned or self-signed binaries. Consumers with the slightest bit of savvy will not run unsigned or self-signed binaries, and OS vendors need to take care of the rest. Thinking of the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability triad, your solution is unworkable.
  - grishka 4y ago
    Everyone used to run unsigned binaries all the time for the entire previous history of computing and somehow the hell didn't break loose. What changed? > Consumers with the slightest bit of savvy will not run unsigned or self-signed binaries I'm a "consumer with the slightest bit of savvy" and I despise code signing schemes that care about the signing identity, so you're already wrong. I absolutely will run unsigned and self-signed binaries. I trust myself and my own judgement more than I do anyone else in the entire universe.

by sbuk 4y ago

0ct4via 4y ago

Absolutely this.

grishka 4y ago

> There is no provenance, no chain-of-trust. We should've probably started with the fact that I despise security policies based on provenance, chains of trust, public key infrastructure, and third parties. This kind of "security" feels extremely fragile and unnecessarily centralized. We somehow live with how SSH identifies servers by their keys, with no third-party verification, and consider that an okay level of security. Why can't we use the same approach for TLS and for executable signatures? What's so fundamentally different that third parties are required in these cases?

sbuk 4y ago
SSH doesn’t rely on PKI. Using SSH certificates is a password replacement for accessing remote services. While it is a kind of identity verification, its purpose is not the same an application signing. Self signing is open to too much abuse. The whole point of signing is that the provenance can be verified (yes, checksums are a thing) and that the signing can be revoked should something bad happen. Notarising code is the process of a third party verifying your identity. So rather than saying, “hey, you can trust me”, you are asking a third party to vet and prove that you are trustworthy. If you can’t see the value in that for all parties - including the most important party, your customers - then that’s up to you. No sane SOC will allow unsigned or self-signed binaries. Consumers with the slightest bit of savvy will not run unsigned or self-signed binaries, and OS vendors need to take care of the rest. Thinking of the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability triad, your solution is unworkable.
- grishka 4y ago
  Everyone used to run unsigned binaries all the time for the entire previous history of computing and somehow the hell didn't break loose. What changed? > Consumers with the slightest bit of savvy will not run unsigned or self-signed binaries I'm a "consumer with the slightest bit of savvy" and I despise code signing schemes that care about the signing identity, so you're already wrong. I absolutely will run unsigned and self-signed binaries. I trust myself and my own judgement more than I do anyone else in the entire universe.