Hacker News Reader

Yes, by levelling accusations of "malware!" at every download not distributed by Microsoft itself.

SmartScreen Filter is a product-disparagement lawsuit waiting to happen. I hope I hear about it in time to pile on.

I think you're referring to the warning about unsigned files? Signed code generally improves security, incidents like the Adobe cert theft are rare. My only complaint is how expensive the certificates can be. Then again, if they were cheap or free we'd just start the cycle of fraud all over again.

That is not true. It is based more on reputation. May be you should first learn more about it before spreading misinformation : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/05/17/smartscreen-17...

I'm quite aware of what I'm talking about, but thanks for your concern.

Russian entrepreneurs get to pay off their national Mafia, while Windows developers get to pay off Symantec. Life goes on, I suppose. But they'd receive fewer complaints if digital signing didn't only improve reputation "twice as fast," whatever that means, in the words of the blog entry you linked to. The opacity of the process is as offensive as the core idea of basing reputation on how commonly something is downloaded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com