4 ms·

Windows prompts if it doesn't have a signature, but will allow you to run it directly from the prompt, unless it involves a driver, which must be signed without

Windows prompts if it doesn't have a signature, but will allow you to run it directly from the prompt, unless it involves a driver, which must be signed without using bcdedit to bypass that feature.

nicce 3y ago
That does not fit the usecase when someone clicks executable with Word icon. And how it is different than asking permission to run it? Edit: as prompt I thought command-line
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  And like all hard problems, that cannot be solved by technology. "Users will literally run the icon that's called malware" has nothing to do with Windows being written in not-Rust, and won't be solved by an operating system written in Rust. You cannot simultaneously empower the user to do useful things and prevent the user from using that exact power to fuck themselves. It's no different from trying to build a gun that can only shoot criminals. It's a completely invalid goal.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Exactly, Windows is asking for permission to execute the executable file. Actually, in its default configuration, it's telling you it has blocked a dangerous file from opening (but you can click a tiny link to show a second button to allow executing the file anyway).
- nullindividual 3y ago
  There are two separate mechanisms here. In this particular subthread, we're discussing code signing -- when an executable lacks it, Windows says "this isn't signed, you sure you want to run this?". When you download a file from the Internet Zone (the old IE concept, but it applies to current browsers), Windows will _block_ the file preventing you from running it (or for certain file types, open it) until you explicitly unblock the file, then re-perform your action.
giantrobot 3y ago
Part of Windows' problem is the system has given users prompt fatigue over the years. Lay people do not stop and read prompts. They will click "Yes" to just about anything. The macOS prompt is much better. It doesn't have a "ok run this anyways". You have to go into the Security pref pane and explicitly open the application (or launch it via context menu in Finder). The dangerous path is blocked for most users.

Windows prompts if it doesn't have a signature, but will allow you to run it directly from the prompt, unless it involves a driver, which must be signed without using bcdedit to bypass that feature.

nicce 3y ago

That does not fit the usecase when someone clicks executable with Word icon. And how it is different than asking permission to run it? Edit: as prompt I thought command-line

mrguyorama 3y ago
And like all hard problems, that cannot be solved by technology. "Users will literally run the icon that's called malware" has nothing to do with Windows being written in not-Rust, and won't be solved by an operating system written in Rust. You cannot simultaneously empower the user to do useful things and prevent the user from using that exact power to fuck themselves. It's no different from trying to build a gun that can only shoot criminals. It's a completely invalid goal.

jeroenhd 3y ago

Exactly, Windows is asking for permission to execute the executable file. Actually, in its default configuration, it's telling you it has blocked a dangerous file from opening (but you can click a tiny link to show a second button to allow executing the file anyway).

nullindividual 3y ago
There are two separate mechanisms here. In this particular subthread, we're discussing code signing -- when an executable lacks it, Windows says "this isn't signed, you sure you want to run this?". When you download a file from the Internet Zone (the old IE concept, but it applies to current browsers), Windows will _block_ the file preventing you from running it (or for certain file types, open it) until you explicitly unblock the file, then re-perform your action.

giantrobot 3y ago

Part of Windows' problem is the system has given users prompt fatigue over the years. Lay people do not stop and read prompts. They will click "Yes" to just about anything. The macOS prompt is much better. It doesn't have a "ok run this anyways". You have to go into the Security pref pane and explicitly open the application (or launch it via context menu in Finder). The dangerous path is blocked for most users.