I thought the macOS notarization process was annoying until we started shipping Windows releases.

It’s basically pay to play to get in the good graces of Windows Defender.

I think all-in it was over $1k upfront to get the various certs. The cert company has to do a pretty invasive verification process for both you and your company.

Then — you are required to use a hardware token to sign the releases. This effectively means we have one team member who can publish a release currently.

The cert company can lock your key as well for arbitrary reasons which prevents you from being able to make a release! Scary if the release you’re putting out is a security patch.

I’ll take the macOS ecosystem any day of the week.

▲

dceddia a day ago | parent | next [-]

The situation on Windows got remarkably better and cheaper recently-ish with the addition of Azure code signing. Instead of hundreds or thousands for a cert it’s $10/month, if you meet the requirements (I think the business must have existed for some number of years first, and some other things).

If you go this route I highly recommend this article, because navigating through Azure to actually set it up is like getting through a maze. https://melatonin.dev/blog/code-signing-on-windows-with-azur...

▲

lwkl 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not easier and cheaper than before. That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure.

For an individual the Apple code signing process is a lot easier and more accessible since I couldn't buy a code signing certificate for Windows without being registered as a business.

	▲	dceddia 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure. Where can you get an EV cert for $120/year? Last time I checked, all the places were more expensive and then you also had to deal with a hardware token. Lest we talk past each other: it's true that it used to be sufficient to buy a non-EV cert for around the same money, where it didn't require a hardware token, and that was good enough... but they changed the rules in 2023.

▲

jonathanlydall a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks for the link, I see only available to basically US, Canada and EU though.

▲

feznyng 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As you said, you need to have a proper legal entity for about 2 years before this becomes an option.

My low-stakes conspiracy theory is that MS is deliberately making this process awful to encourage submission of apps to the Microsoft Store since you only have to pay a one-time $100 fee there for code-signing. The downside is of course that you can only distribute via the MS store.

▲

Razengan a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> it’s $10/month

So $120 a year but no it's only Apple with a "tAx"

	▲	TimeBearingDown a day ago \| parent [-]
		Millions of Windows power users are accustomed to bypassing SmartScreen. A macOS app distributed without a trusted signature will reach a far smaller audience, even of the proportionately smaller macOS user base, and that's largely due to deliberate design decisions by Apple in recent releases.

▲

deltaknight a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The EV cert system is truly terrible on Windows. Worst of all, getting an EV cert isn’t even enough to remove the scary warnings popping up for users! For that you still need to convince windows defender that you’re not a bad actor by getting installs on a large number of devices, which of course is a chicken-and-egg problem for software with a small number of users.

At least paying your dues to Apple guarantees a smooth user experience.

▲

jonathanlydall a day ago | parent | next [-]

No, this information is wrong (unless it’s changed in the last 7 years). EV code signing certs are instantly trusted by Windows Defender.

Source: We tried a non-EV code signing certificate for our product used by only dozens of users at the time, never stopped showing scary warnings. When we got an EV, no more issues.

In case it makes a difference, we use DigiCert.

▲

e40 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Not true for us. We EV cert sign (the more expensive one) and my CEO ( the only one left that uses Windows) had this very problem. Apparently the first time a newly signed binary is run it can take up to 15 minutes for defender to allow it. First time I saw this, it was really annoying and confusing.

▲

jonathanlydall 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Interesting.

I regularly download our signed installer often within a minute of it being made available, never noticed a delay.

Maybe it’s very the first time Windows Defender sees a particular org on a cert.

I renewed our cert literally on Friday, tested by making a new build of our installer and could instantly install it fine.

You sure there was no other non Windows default security software on your bosses machine?

	▲	feznyng 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They did change it, I think after some debacle with Nvidia pushing an update. They seem to want devs to submit their files via their portal now to get rid of the screen: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission

▲

ryandrake a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Wow. I haven't written software for Windows in over a decade. I always thought Apple was alone in its invasive treatment of developers on their platform. Windows used to be "just post the exe on your web site, and you're good to go." I guess Microsoft has finally managed to aggressively insert themselves into the distribution process there, too. Sad to see.

▲

jeroenhd 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Windows used to be "just post the exe on your web site, and you're good to go."

That's also one of the main reasons why Windows was such a malware-ridden hellspace. Microsoft went the Apple route to security and it worked out.

At least Microsoft doesn't require you to dismiss the popup, open the system settings, click the "run anyway" button, and enter a password to run an unsigned executable. Just clicking "more details -> run anyway" still exists on the SmartScreen popup, even if they've hidden it well.

Despite Microsoft's best attempts, macOS still beats Windows when it comes to terribleness for running an executable.

	▲	ryandrake 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I just wish these companies could solve the malware problem in a way that doesn't always involve inserting themselves as gatekeepers over what the user runs or doesn't run on the user's computer. I don't want any kind of ongoing relationship with my OS vendor once I buy their product, let alone have them decide for me what I can and cannot run.

▲

etbebl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I get that if you're distributing software to the wider public, you have to make sure these scary alerts don't pop up regardless of platform. But as a savvy user, I think the situation is still better on Windows. As far as I've seen there's still always a (small) link in these popups (I think it's SmartScreen?) to run anyway - no need to dig into settings before even trying to run it.

	▲	Archit3ch an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Are you sure? I had not used Windows for years and assumed "Run Anyway" would work. Last month, I tested running an unsigned (self-signed) .MSIX on a different Windows machine. It's a 9-step process to get through the warnings: https://www.advancedinstaller.com/install-test-certificate-f... Perhaps .exe is easier, but I wouldn't subject the wider public (or even power users) to that. So yeah, Azure Trusted Signing or EV certificate is the way to go on Windows.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

jezek2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I solved it by putting a "How to install.rtf" file alongside the program.

Another alternative would be to bundle this app: https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel

It allows to easily unlock it by drag'n'drop.

▲

tyre a day ago | parent [-]

What is the subset of users who are going to investigate and read an rtf file but don’t know how to approve an application via system settings (or google to do so)?

	▲	jezek2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I would say quite a lot of users because even the previous simple method of right clicking wasn't that known even by power users. Lot of them just selected "allow applications from anyone" in the settings (most likely just temporarily). In one application I also offered an alternative by using a web app in case they were not comfortable with any of the option. Also it's presented in a .dmg file where you have two icons, the app and the "How to install". I would say that's quite inviting for investigation :)

▲

Klonoar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have been trying to get people to realize that this is the same or worse for like a year now.

It’s unfortunate it’s come to this but Apple is hardly the worst of the two now.

▲

TobbenTM a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You certainly don't need a hardware token, you can store it in any FIPS 140 Level 2+ stores. This includes stuff like Azure KeyVault and AWS KMS.

Azure Trusted Signing is 100% the best choice, but if for whatever reason you cannot use it, you can still use your own cloud store and hook in the signing tools. I wrote an article on using AWS KMS earlier this year: https://moonbase.sh/articles/signing-windows-binaries-using-...

TLDR: Doing this yourself requires a ~400-500$/year EV cert and miniscule cloud costs

	▲	jonathanlydall a day ago \| parent [-]
		Can confirm this, we use Azure KeyVault and are able to have Azure Pipelines use it to sign our release builds. We’re (for the moment) a South African entity, so can’t use Azure Trusted Signing, but DigiCert has no issue with us using Azure KeyVault for our EV code signing certificate. I had ours renewed just this week as it happens. Cost something like USD 840 before tax, don’t have a choice though and in the grand scheme of things it’s not a huge expense for a company.

▲

rxliuli 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's right, there's a similar comparison between the iOS App Store and Android Play Store. Although the annual $99 fee is indeed expensive, the Play Store requires every app to find 12 users for 14 days of internal testing before submission for review, which is utterly incomprehensible, not to mention the constant warnings about inactive accounts potentially being disabled.