• TeamAssimilation
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Let’s Encrypt is a trusted, established alternative, it could replace Microsoft for long-lived software certificates.

    Or tarnish its name associating it with malware and bad actors, who knows?

    • Luminous5481 [they/them]@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Let’s Encrypt is a trusted, established alternative, it could replace Microsoft for long-lived software certificates.

      Uh, no it could not.

      First of all, the whole point of signing software is to ensure it comes from a reputable source. Let’s Encrypt signs certificates with an automated process that does no verification whatsoever of the identity of the person asking for a certificate. It would make the whole process completely pointless.

      Second, Let’s Encrypt has stated themselves over a decade ago that they have no intention of doing this because it would render the whole system pointless.

      • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The point of signing software is to ensure the software was not tampered from the publisher. Linux package managers solve this by comparing a gpg key from the publisher with the software’s. There is no need for a corporate giant to “vet” software.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I guess, the point was there’s nothing doing that in windows, and you will have to check manually or use an expensive M$ certificate