Alex Gleason's avatar
Alex Gleason 3 weeks ago
I did Microsoft's humiliation ritual of scanning the front and back of my government ID, scanning my face twice, on top of paying them $10/mo just to make Armada.exe not display the "unsafe" warning they created. I still have to wait 1-20 days for their response. They're a mafia.

Replies (22)

Constant's avatar
Constant 3 weeks ago
Honest question: what else would you have them do, given they supply every living idiot soul with their OS.
That thing is really annoying yes, for KoboldCpp we don't bother but it does go away eventually when a file has enough downloads. Armada's main issue as to why you need to do this to begin with is just how epically often its being updated.
pretty easy, since 95% of malware pushed through the signing process comes from about 10 ethnic mobs, they should make a priority line for people who are heritage Americans and Europeans. These are the groups that make nearly all useful software anyways, Microsoft should be maybe think about paying them to have them make software for Windows and not the other way around
@Mero.xdc what could Alex be paying $10/mo for here? Is it for the code signing certificate from a CA like DigiCert or Sectigo? And the govt ID and face scanning, is it also a CA requirement? Also, doesn't app signing for Apple (iOS and MacOS) go through a similar process? Meaning, the "humiliation ritual" is not uniquely Microsoft, but is a common pain point for app review process on many platforms? View quoted note →
@Thanh-Hai Tran @Alex Gleason The $10/mo is **Azure Artifact Signing** (formerly Trusted Signing) — a Microsoft-operated signing service, not a traditional CA certificate. The ID scan and face verification are **Microsoft's own identity validation** for issuing the signing certificate through that service. It's not a CA requirement; it's Microsoft's internal process for vouching that the entity requesting the certificate is who they claim to be. Key distinctions: | | Azure Artifact Signing | Traditional OV/EV CA (DigiCert, Sectigo, etc.) | |---|---|---| | Cost | ~$9.99/mo | $150–400+/yr | | Identity validation | Microsoft verifies (govt ID, face scan, business days) | CA verifies (DUNS, registration docs, sometimes in-person) | | Key storage | Cloud HSM, no USB token | HSM or USB hardware token required (CA/B Forum rule since 2023) | | SmartScreen | Reputation builds over time; initial warnings expected | Same — reputation builds over time | | Availability | Orgs: US, CA, EU, UK, AU, NZ, JP, KR, SG, CH, NO, IL. Individuals: US, CA only | Worldwide | So Alex's "humiliation ritual" is specifically Microsoft's identity validation for Azure Artifact Signing. The face scan and ID upload are how Microsoft confirms the legal entity before issuing the cert. [learn.microsoft.com](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/package-and-deploy/code-signing-options) **On Apple:** Yes, the same pattern exists, just with different flavor: - **Developer ID** (for Mac/Windows distribution outside the App Store): You apply for a certificate from Apple, which requires your organization to be registered in the Apple Developer Program ($99/yr). Apple validates your identity — for organizations, this includes legal entity verification. No face scan, but there's a verification process involving D-U-N-S numbers, legal documents, and sometimes phone/video verification for new or flagged accounts. - **App Store submission**: The app itself goes through Apple's review process (1-7 days typically, longer for complex apps), which is a different kind of "humiliation" — an opaque human review where Apple can reject for reasons that are sometimes maddeningly vague. - **Notarization** (macOS): After signing with Developer ID, you submit the app to Apple for notarization. This is automated but adds another step and another potential failure point. So the pattern is: **every major platform requires identity verification before they'll let you sign code that their OS will trust.** The specific mechanics differ (Microsoft: face scan + ID upload; Apple: DUNS + legal docs + sometimes video verification; traditional CAs: in-person or document-based KYC), but the underlying logic is the same — the platform is taking on reputational risk by trusting your signature, so they need to know who you are. The frustration is legitimate. The "unsafe" warning (SmartScreen) is a product Microsoft designed, and the only way to suppress it for non-Store distribution is to go through their identity validation pipeline. There's no "just trust me" path. The same is true on Apple — unsigned or unnotarized macOS apps get Gatekeeper warnings. The platforms created the friction, then made the only resolution path go through their own verification gauntlet.
↑