Microsoft terminates VeraCrypt account, halting Windows updates
Microsoft’s termination of VeraCrypt’s Windows signing account, which could eventually prevent encrypted systems from booting under Secure Boot, is prompting wider concern over how much control platform vendors wield over third‑party software. Commenters argue that while code signing and Secure Boot can provide real security benefits, tying them to opaque, centralized services creates single points of failure and de facto gatekeeping power. The incident is cited alongside similar account lockouts and mobile-style restrictions as evidence of a trend toward locked-down computing that risks sidelining open-source tools and user autonomy.
Microsoft account termination and blast radius
- Thread views the VeraCrypt signing-account shutdown as part of a broader pattern: Microsoft can unilaterally break critical third‑party software that depends on its signing/driver infrastructure.
- Other projects reportedly hit: WireGuard-related account, Windscribe, 5eplay.com, and “a bunch” of driver developers and companies via Partner Center lockouts.
- Several note the lack of human support or appeal path and describe Trusted Signing verification as brittle and inconsistent, especially for small orgs and non‑US entities.
- Some suspect this is Microsoft nudging developers onto Trusted Signing; others hint at possible regulatory/geopolitical pressure, but motives are acknowledged as unclear.
Executable signing & Secure Boot: security vs. control
- One camp argues executable signing and Secure Boot mainly serve vendor control: deciding what users may run, training people to accept locked devices, and enabling ecosystem lock‑in (parallels drawn to iOS and Android).
- Opposing camp stresses real security benefits: protection against bootkits, kernel‑mode malware, firmware tampering, and “evil maid” attacks; essential for practical full‑disk encryption (FDE) with TPM.
- Embedded / money‑handling and safety‑critical systems are widely seen as legitimate beneficiaries of Secure Boot.
- Critics respond that:
- Most users’ actual threats (ransomware, stalkerware) aren’t mitigated much by SB.
- Boot‑level malware was historically rare; SB has had many bypasses and key leaks.
- Disabling SB is often impractical on phones and some PCs, and embedded devices frequently burn vendor keys permanently.
- Supporters emphasize users can (in principle) disable SB or enroll their own keys; opponents counter that this is too complex for normal users and increasingly blocked by software and mobile apps.
Full‑disk encryption: VeraCrypt vs. BitLocker/TPM
- Some prefer VeraCrypt‑style FDE with a passphrase/keyfile and no reliance on motherboard secrets or cloud escrow.
- Others argue TPM‑backed BitLocker with optional PIN is more secure in practice and far easier for non‑experts; OneDrive key upload can be disabled.
- Disagreement over whether TPM‑only unlock on the original motherboard is acceptable security if a laptop is stolen.
Microsoft, lock‑in, and OS choices
- Many see this incident as another example of Microsoft’s long‑running strategy: vendor lock‑in, surveillance, “enshittification” of products (Windows 11, Copilot, Teams, GitHub), and obstructing non‑Microsoft ecosystems.
- Some broaden the criticism to the whole tech industry; others highlight Apple’s iOS browser and app‑store restrictions as a parallel form of holding back progress.
- Multiple commenters describe personal or organizational migrations from Windows/SSIS/Office 365 to Linux, macOS, PostgreSQL, and FOSS tools, often citing privacy and control.
- Linux is portrayed as increasingly polished (Valve/Steam Deck, gaming improvements), though proprietary apps like SolidWorks/Fusion 360 remain blockers for some.
Code signing ecosystem and potential reforms
- Many resent that FOSS authors must pay commercial CAs (sometimes hundreds of dollars per year) just to distribute free Windows software; some call code signing a “scam.”
- Others argue a moderate price floor is useful to keep out low‑effort malware, as long as it’s “trivial for serious developers.”
- Ideas floated:
- A central, independent signing authority for open source or foundation‑backed signing (with reproducible/audited builds).
- Existing FOSS‑friendly CAs (e.g., Certum, Comodo) and projects like ossign.org as partial solutions.
- Counter‑arguments note that centralization creates a powerful, corruptible chokepoint and further encourages locked‑down computing; current distro‑level signing (Debian, Arch, etc.) is seen as a healthier, decentralized model.