In those cases, "we" (as a "community", in general) often blame the people responsible for running those services instead of the developers (or Amazon) being blamed for choosing convenience/ease-of-use over security. That is, we're often quick to say that the people running those wide open memcached servers are at fault for not properly configuring and/or securing them -- and not blaming the developers for creating "a giant footgun".
"You shouldn't be running servers on the Internet if you don't know how to properly configure them" (paraphrasing) is often stated. Yet, in this case, we're not blaming Oculus for their screwup and instead blaming Microsoft -- even though there's zero evidence (AFAIK) that Oculus even used any Microsoft tools to sign their application. (N.B.: I don't know the first thing about code signing on Windows so it may well be that using a Microsoft utility is required and, thus, just assumed by those of you who are familiar with the process. If that's the case, sorry.)
I'm having trouble trying to reconcile these two seemingly opposing viewpoints. Why is Microsoft's utility "a giant footgun" but a (OOTB) completely insecure by default, wide open by default memcached server (for example) isn't?
I mean this with all respect... but why? You're talking about different opinions expressed by completely different people. HN isn't a monolith.
My point was: in most threads, there's a common opinion or viewpoint shared by most, along with a few "detractors". In general, though, the overwhelming "predominant" opinions (within/on a particular subject) are pretty consistent from one thread to the next.
For example, the "it's the end user's fault, not the developers" thing I mentioned earlier. That seems to be, pretty consistently, the "belief of the majority". Here, though, it's the complete opposite. Instead of saying "the end user (Oculus) screwed up" (which, IMO, they certainly did, FWIW), it's "Microsoft made a footgun which caused this".
That said, I have now made it through the rest of the comments in this thread and it seems that this viewpoint isn't as widespread as it first appeared. Perhaps I just jumped to a conclusion much too quickly; there's obviously plenty of fingers pointing at Oculus as well.
There's no reason for drivers to have an expiration date. There's no scenario where it makes sense for the configuration that Oculus stumbled into to be possible.
I'm not being facetious, FWIW. I know a fair amount about PKI, in general (probably in more depth and intricate detail than the average HN'er, actually), but I'm not a developer and I know very little about code signing in particular (and even less when it comes to the Microsoft world of code signing).
I do find it kinda hard to believe that there's no use case whatsoever for this particular configuration (code signing w/o an included timestamp from a TTP), though. I certainly understand why a timestamp can be valuable (as it would in this case) but what isn't clear is that there is "no scenario" whatsoever where the lack of a timestamp might be acceptable or perhaps even desired.
As I said, though, I don't know enough about code signing specifically to know what these scenarios might be but I can't imagine there isn't even one of them.
I can readily imagine a scenario where a driver with a signature but no separately attested timestamp should be acceptable. What I cannot imagine is a scenario where it is useful to treat a driver signed in such manner the way Windows currently treats the driver.
If you can license software with a definite expiration date, why can't you license hardware with a definite expiration date? And have your license enforced by the operating system? Imagine that I'm a company with a hardware product, and instead of selling that hardware at large expense, I rent it out, and provide drivers with an expiration date to enforce the terms of the hardware lease. If the lease is renewed, I'll provide new drivers with a new lease expiration.
Not that I'm arguing for hardware licensing, or arguing that it was what Oculus was trying to achieve and screwed up somehow. But there's a difference between "Microsoft built a feature some of their customers didn't know how to use" and "Microsoft built an anti-feature".
Am I getting this right?
Why aren't we blaming the people behind RFC5280, after all it was them who came up with this awful idea that certificates should expire.
>giant footgun
oh dear god how are you generating your certificates? This is not a footgun unless you are doing something immeasurably stupid before even involving MS products.
Besides, if you insist on going ahead and setting the Not After field, wouldn't it be a bigger footgun to ignore that?
However, I'd argue that disregarding the Validity section would be an unusually big departure from the spec, not comparable to the typical silliness surrounding x.509.