It is particularly ironic that so many people in this thread are recommending 7-zip in response to a cert problem with WinRAR when 7-zip has no code signing at all and presents the scary yellow "unknown software" screen when you try to install it.
Do anyone pays attention to this? There is a lot of legitimate software you can't install without clicking through. 7-zip is just one of them.
https://www.digicert.com/blog/ms-smartscreen-application-rep....
Shiny new features require Secure Context so (other than on localhost) you can't do them with HTTP at all. That means things like Geolocation, WebAuthn, Service Workers, and essentially anything that's actually novel (couldn't just be polyfilled with Javascript). There are even old features getting deprecated in non-Secure Contexts because in hindsight we should have required Secure Context but it was hard to pull the trigger. For example EME (the DRM for some video content online) will probably require Secure Context.
Browsers are also adding back scary warnings for some more basic features like form submission when used without Secure Context.
And some domains (including entire TLDs) are locked down to forbid HTTP anyway. If you type in an HTTP URL in those domains it's rewritten as HTTPS and you can't undo that†
† Some browsers can override this as a corporate policy, so if your company really wants to be less secure it can disable the upgrades for some or all domains. But out of the box this is how the browser behaves.
Regardless, 7zip does not have as much of a need for a certificate because it is foss so you do not need to trust the creators, in comparison to winrar which isn't and you need to trust them.
Codesigning is a protection racket, and FOSS should not feel pressured to participate in it.