top 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 75 points 7 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Tbf they literally tell you that your keys will be uploaded...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I dunno that “they’re open about it” makes it any better

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 201 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    "Not every 'WTF micro$oft' moment is a slam dunk," he tweeted. "I've emailed VeraCrypt personally and we'll get him unblocked. I've already talked to Jason at WireGuard. Not everything is a conspiracy, sometimes it's literally paperwork."

    Funny how paperwork never really seems to be a problem for any other OS.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    It's not a conspiracy, just plain old incompetence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

    The older I've gotten (or the further into late stage capitalism), the less I'm inclined to accept "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" (- Napoleon, perhaps) and the more I subscribe to "Why not both?".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Wow, that’s pretty damming. Three of them? This can’t be a random absurd error like it plausibly could have been for the first one reported.

    There must be a really big flaw in their system if three VPN devs just “missed an email”. Is Microsoft sending the emails from a bullshit sus address?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Eh, it could be just a vibe code blunder, given this hit a suitably large number of others.

    Which would be equally damning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 7 months ago

    Introduce mandatory signatures for driver files, they said. It's so safe, it's for your protection against viruses - they said. Keys can always be revoked from unscrupulous developers - they said. It will never be used to fight opensource, they said. It will never be a tool against inconvenient CIA applications - they said.

  • source
  • [–] 101 points 7 months ago

    Microslop doing microslop things.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Glad I got out when I did.

    I'm happy with Linux Mint, and most Windows users would be too, methinks.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Stop spreading FUD.

    What do you mean no access to encryption of any kind? That phrase makes zero sense.

    Of course they want you to use backdoored encryption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    My guess?

    NSA is currently figuring out how to insert backdoors into all these things.

    You see, the last backdoor they used all the time, well.... people figured it out.

    So, they had to ban uh, checks notes, apparently all routers, basically.

    So, now they need a new backdoor into literally everything.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Not quite. The way the NSA and CIA usually work with Microsoft for exploits is pretty much just having them hold off on specific updates whenever needed.

    In this case it sounds like they have specific targets using windscribe and veracrypt that they need to remain unpatched.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I'd like to believe that this means that these three pieces of software actually work and that someone in high office has decided that that is unacceptable.

    Paranoid authoritarians really do not like ordinary people having access to secure communications and personal privacy. That might be an avenue they can use to organise and elect someone who isn't a paranoid authoritarian, and that won't do.

    On the other hand, these pieces of software might already be compromised and this is all an elaborate double-bluff.

    In which case it's time for a few well placed communications over purportedly secure channels that would be guaranteed to generate an authoritarian response. Which they'll then have to pretend they didn't read until it's too late.

    I'm talking organising - horrors - peaceful protests. They really don't like those. They have to use their brains, or someone else's, in order to find a good excuse to stick the boot in.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    How many more of these do people really need to just get the fuck out from under Microsoft's umbrella?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Totaly agree, but dev need to sign their software to run on windows.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, no, I totally get it. It just blows that people just bends over like this for all the corpo bullshit, users, devs and other companies alike. I have a small business with my wife, and I try to run as much as humanly possible on open source software. I donate to the platforms we use, and for almost 3 years we've gotten away with not giving any money to Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple or any of the other tech giants. It is a Titanic task to keep everything running, for sure, but absolutely worth it. My point is that, if we can do it being so small and barely profitable, I can't imagine larger companies having an issue with moving away from these predatory practices. Then again, I'm not fully aware of what other businesses might require that we can live without comfortably.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Congrats! I did the same.

    You know all those conveniences that Google gives us for "free" that we all of a sudden can't seem to live without? Microsoft does that for "enterprise level" companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    But open source is janky and doesnt Just Work!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Just like with proprietary software, there's amazingly dependable FOSS software, and there's garbage. In my experience FOSS is much more reliable when compared to it's proprietary counterparts, with very few exceptions. Seems to me that you've been dealing with the wrong FOSS projects.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    This is a thread about how corpo shit arbitrarily locks you out with no warning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Oh, better switch to bitlocker and onedrive then...

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Probably an "accident'", until CIA got what they want.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago*

    I keep dual boot with Windows available for my wife. About a year ago my Fedora install was stuck in a boot loop and I hadn’t used my PC in a good while, nor updated anything the last time I had used it. The only conclusion I can think of is either bitflips corrupted the boot process, or Windows fucked with my Fedora install at some point while — perhaps my wife’s activity allowed a Windows update through, I don’t know. They’re on separate drives though, so… I recovered my data and reinstalled, kept Windows but I am now extremely sensitive to any shenanigans from that drive. Reading this news has me considering to tell my wife she will have to use Windows from a VM on my PC.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Mysteriously? Really?

    The reason was clear, they never got the email for account verification, and were locked out. MS messed up.

    I really hate headlines these days.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Thanks for evolving VPN, Wireguard. Here's a boot in your face! ~Microsoft

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The NSA would just order Microsoft to give them a direct backdoor, like they did with AT&T. They wouldn't order an account disabled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Why the fuck would any of those organizations still being using Microsoft to begin with?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    These were the developer accounts to sign their software to run on Windows

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I don't understand why they are signing it. I mean we know that Microsoft is hostile, why submit to their signing bullshit.

    The more you normalise bad behaviour the worse it gets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Signing it verifies that the software was made by company that it says it was. It’s a method to avoid installing fake or malicious software.

    It is on its face a good thing, with the major caveat being who is in charge of who gets to sign what.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    If its not signed its easier to fake and people would be at risk of installing malicious software. Its Microsofts platform so it needs the Microsoft signature.

    You dont have to sign it, but signing it has benefits. And while Microsoft can revoke it, that doesnt mean they cant still ship the unsigned software.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago

    My conspiracy theory: those signing keys are very "tasty" maybe Microsoft was aware that some state-sponsored attacker got hold on them and blacklisted for everyone's safety.

    Imagine what would happen if NSA or that other Israeli spy company could sign fake veracrypt or Wireshark binaries

  • source
  • 6 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Hanselman pointed to a Microsoft blog post noting that, starting in October, the company began requiring "mandatory account verification for all partners in the Windows Hardware Program," which also covers certifying software drivers. Last month, the company updated the post to say: "Accounts that did not successfully complete account verification and received a Rejected verification status have been suspended from the Windows Hardware Program, and submissions from these accounts are no longer permitted."

    So they didn't hand over their blood and urine samples to Microsoft so they don't get to be developers anymore

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 7 months ago*

    Except it notes that the wireguard dev definitely complied with that so while Microslop might be hiding behind that fiction it is just a fiction and not the real cause.

    I'm suspicious if it isn't because the US has discovered something exploitable in both wireguard and veracrypt and want to prevent it being patched while they (the US) unleash it against their enemies over a prolonged period. That or just crushing privacy.

    Linux stay winning I guess as this would be the first case in history where Microsoft has used its position as gatekeeper to prevent Windows users from running software they want to run in this manner. Even worse you have to disable driver signature enforcement system-wide to bypass it, it's more locked down than Apple which can grant per application gate-keeper exemptions. It's just up until now Microsoft handed out driver signing like candy.

    It's interesting both of these are also tools likely be targeted by the "child safety" panic being shopped around to enact ID laws. Encryption without a backdoor is something they really hate whether it's for data in transit or at rest.

    One last thought is that Microsoft mentioned kicking third parties out of the kernel after the Crowdstrike fiasco where they borked a ton of airline computers due to awful practices. Many hoped it would mean kicking anti-cheat out of the kernel but it would be very Microsoft to start with kicking privacy tools out instead and simply insist that using Windows bitlocker is enough and Windows VPN settings are adequate and therefore these software needn't be in the kernel.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago
    [–] 23 points 7 months ago

    "Not every 'WTF micro$oft' moment is a slam dunk,"

    Brother, your quotas of shit hitting the fan is reaching fecal velocity of new degrees. Your company's current state of existence has absolved you of the right to a balanced perspective.

    What I'm trying to say is it's never gonna Microsoft 100% of the time, but at this point no one trusts you, and you've earned that, and now you have to live with the consequences. I know this Microsoft contact is probably not the reason, but he is still working there, and that means he deserves some of the blame on a constructive level.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Microsoft’s partner portal website mysteriously said his account had been deactivated, without specifying why.

    My money is on Microsoft's AI based detections causing false positives again. I spend way too much time chasing ghosts from Defender. Their machine learning based signatures are especially egregious. You get an alert with a name like "Win32/Wacatac.b!ml". That last "ml" bit denotes that it's machine learning based. And then you get fuck all to help you determine why the alert fired. Sure, it might actually be a trojan. More likely, it's a false positive. But who knows, because Microsoft won't provide enough information to perform a reasonable analysis of the binary.

    And MS has been pushing CoPilot hard. It's in everything and it's happy to slop up answers for you. The accuracy of those answers though can be a bit spotty. I'd certainly never turn it loose on tools which can have business impact. But, I doubt Microsoft has any such reservations about letting CoPilot slop all over third party devs.

  • source