Microsoft terminated the account VeraCrypt used to sign Windows drivers (sourceforge.net)

by super256 501 comments 1297 points
Read article View on HN

501 comments

[−] zx2c4 37d ago
This is the same problem I'm currently facing with WireGuard. No warning at all, no notification. One day I sign in to publish an update, and yikes, account suspended. Currently undergoing some sort of 60 days appeals process, but who knows. That's kind of crazy: what if there were some critical RCE in WireGuard, being exploited in the wild, and I needed to update users immediately? (That's just hypothetical; don't freak out!) In that case, Microsoft would have my hands entirely tied.

If anybody within Microsoft is able to do something, please contact me -- jason at zx2c4 dot com.

[−] ninjagoo 37d ago
It has been clear for a while that certain providers and services need to be regulated as utilities - Microsoft, Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard, and soon Openai and Anthropic.

It should be illegal for these companies, just like utilities, to deny service to anyone or any entity in good standing for dues.

There is little hope for getting this through in the US where most politicians of any stripe hate the public, and the ones that don't have hardly any power. But it might be possible to do this in the EU.

Then, we non-EU folks need to apply for Estonian e-residency [1] which may get us EU regulatory coverage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Residency_of_Estonia

[−] nostrademons 37d ago
It would not surprise me if these actions are coming at the requests of governments. Strong encryption is one of the few things that challenges their monopoly on information; they have a very strong incentive to apply political pressure to the maintainers of these projects to, well, stop maintaining the projects. We've seen this in overt actions that the EU takes; in more covert actions that the U.S. government is suspected of taking; and in the news headlines about third-world dictatorships that just shut off the Internet. Tech companies are perhaps the most convenient leverage point for these actions.

More regulation won't help here, because the regulation-maker is itself the hostile party.

What would help is full control over the supply chain. Hardware that you own, free and open-source operating systems where no single person is the bottleneck to distribution, and free software that again has no single person who is a failure point and no way to control its distribution.

[−] francosimon 37d ago
VLayer (my project) scans healthcare codebases for HIPAA compliance issues before they reach production. One thing I learned building it: developers rarely think about encryption until it's too late. Tools like VeraCrypt solve the "data at rest" problem, but the bigger issue in healthcare software is unencrypted data in logs and API responses — stuff that's much harder to audit manually.
[−] andai 37d ago
So like, TSMC, but syndicalist?
[−] aeternum 37d ago

>More regulation won't help here, because the regulation-maker is itself the hostile party.

It's easy to paint the big gov as bad, but this is a case where unfortunately the populace seems to be in agreement with the big bad gov. While most US citizens support encryption, 76% or so, the vast majority 63% also favor government "backdoor" access for national security reasons.

I guess either we believe in democracy or we don't. It could be said that if Veracrypt isn't/can't be backdoor'd, perhaps the gov is simply implementing the will of the people :( via Microsoft.

[−] koliber 37d ago
Tyranny of majority is a thing. It's something mature democracies are aware of and have the ability to defend against.

We're in an interesting spot here and the tension is tangible.

[−] account42 36d ago
Does the majority of the population even have a self-formed opinion on this or are they just parroting what the media tells them (which in many "democratic" countries is directly or indirectly controlled by the government, i.e. propaganda).
[−] joepie91_ 36d ago
I'd be very wary about such specific surveys, because they're often very much not conducted in a scientifically responsible manner, and based on actual studies across the spectrum of political issues there's basically no alignment between public opinion/preferences and actual policymaking in the US.

Could this be the one exceptional case where people agree with the direction of policymaking? Sure. Is that likely? No, not really.

[−] phatfish 37d ago
What does democracy have to do with electronic encryption? Democracy existed before computers.

There are legitimate reasons for governments to intercept information, with the correct oversight -- enforced legally in an "checks and balances" manner. The fact that there is a breakdown of trust between government and people won't be solved with more encryption.

[−] bigfishrunning 36d ago

> vast majority 63% also favor government "backdoor" access for national security reasons.

Don't do math that way! That math is illegal! Good boys and girls don't keep secrets!

These people sound ridiculous

[−] prox 37d ago
We need a law that a human representative can be spoken to within 24 hours or directly when something critical happens.

Also “there is no appeal possible” should be plain illegal.

[−] BrenBarn 37d ago
They should probably be regulated as utilities and broken up into smaller companies, so that it's easier for people to migrate to alternatives when one company does something bad.
[−] x0x0 37d ago
I've gotten business verification for Microsoft before. The kind you need in order to get certain oauth scopes for their O365 platform.

Do not discount complete, total, utter, profound fucking incompetence as the driving reason behind this.

Getting the business verification was an astounding shitshow. With a registered C corp and everything, massively unclear instructions, UI nestled in a partner site with tons of dead ends. And then even after all the docs, it took another week because -- in an action that nobody could possibly have ever foreseen -- we had two different microsoft accounts due to a cofounder buying ONE LICENSE of O365 for excel and doing domain verification because it suggested it.

[−] miohtama 37d ago
If it is regulated as a utility, the government will want to ban these hacking tools.
[−] zelphirkalt 37d ago
I have a feeling, that the resolve to do something about it is waning in the EU, because of the plans to soften up the GDPR.
[−] NewsaHackO 37d ago
It always weird to see how dichotomy of some people saying AI will never be profitable and are doomed to fail and others saying that they are such a essential public service that they are a utility and should be subject to government regulation. Hopefully they are not the same group of people, but I suspect there is a greater overlap that one would expect.
[−] onehair 37d ago
Now this is even more alarming! Wireguard's creator has their Microsoft account suspended...

Microsoft doesn't want to allow software that would allow the user to shield themselves, either by totally encrypting a drive, or by encrypting their network traffic!

[−] teruakohatu 37d ago
I am astounded that the maintainer and inventor of Wireguard is in this position.

Microsoft even supports Wireguard in Azure Kubernetes Service.

[−] pogue 37d ago
They need to get some tech site like Arstechnica to write about it, like they did when neocities couldn't get ahold of bing. The only way to contact these tech companies to speak to a real human being and not a chatbot is if you know somebody who works there or if the media writes about it.
[−] firen777 37d ago
[−] newsoftheday 37d ago
First I was surprised to read the Veracrypt maintainers could be in this situation, then read the top comment where Wireguard maintainers are too (unless I misunderstood). Is this some malicious new program inside Microsoft to try and shutdown open source projects so they can push Windows products and solutions more?
[−] feyman_r 37d ago
[−] Topfi 37d ago
Honest question, did we ever get an answer what was the cause for the sudden change from the original Truecrypt developer?

Even if one doesn't want to maintain that project for purely private reasons, recommending Bitlocker as the drop-in-replacement always made it smell fishy to me.

[−] 0xCE0 37d ago
Linux is the only hope at this point for the future of computing.

Windows and macOS are just too risky to do any business with. Waste of all resources.

[−] no_time 37d ago
prediction: they are testing the waters. If there is enough outcry they will go "oopsie whoopsie, hehe :3 your account is restored".

If there isn't enough outcry they will go forward and disable more signing keys related to things like torrent clients, VPN software, eject UBO from the edge store etc etc.

Atleast now I'm a bit more certain that VC is indeed safe.

[−] dizhn 37d ago
Microsoft disabled the developer's certificate so no windows releases can be made.
[−] shelled 37d ago
I am somewhat also concerned that this software was still being distributed on SourceForge.
[−] LWIRVoltage 37d ago
What sucks about this, is due to implementation,Windows is the only way to achieve some stuff in Veracrypt. For example: doing full system partition encryption, and the Hidden OS install that only Veracrypt can do- requires Windows with the computer set to MBR rather than UEFU. I had hoped we'd see more of the plausible deniability tech at the OS level

But aside from one or two experimental attempts, also presented at BlackHat https://web.archive.org/web/20250914062843/https://portswigg...

- the consumer has nearly lost access to high end plausible deniability

[−] nixpulvis 37d ago
We need a better way to sign and verify software. Clearly companies like Microsoft and Apple have not been good for the open source communities and are inhibiting innovation.
[−] ninjagoo 37d ago
Looks like Linux and some of the BSDs are the only remaining truly open OSes.
[−] tomgag 37d ago
Sorry to hear about this turn of events, but it was pretty much to be expected given the way the world is turning, and Microsoft being Microsoft.

Switch to Linux if you can, and come give Shufflecake a try ;)

https://shufflecake.net/

[−] not_a9 37d ago
https://community.osr.com/t/locked-out-of-microsoft-partner-... Could be a related issue to this? Maybe Microsoft just doesn’t want driver developers for whatever reason.
[−] _s_a_m_ 37d ago
Microsoft doing everything in their power to be assholes, as always
[−] idolofdust 37d ago
Get off Windows right now.

The newest frontier AI models can easily find 0-days in all major software stacks, while the two biggest open source security tools on Windows can’t even ship patches.

[−] RandomGerm4n 37d ago
That's especially ridiculous because this whole security mechanism that Microsoft is forcing on Windows user doesn't even work. There are tons of leaked certificates and on forums dedicated to game hacking you can find guides on how to get your hands on one yourself. People there use them to write kernel drivers for cheating in games. Game developers often blacklist these in their anti-cheat software so that the game no longer launches on a computer using a driver with that certificate. Microsoft however does not do this and malware developers can then simply use the certificates for their own purposes. So all this nonsense is basically just a restriction on regular users and honest developers while the “bad guys” can get around it.
[−] 8cvor6j844qw_d6 37d ago
Seeing this kind of friction makes me more confident in VeraCrypt. The tools that never seem to run into trouble with platform gatekeepers are the ones I'd worry about.
[−] shevy-java 37d ago
This is always a problem when big mega-corporations are involved, be it Google or Microsoft. They want to control the platform.

We really need viable solutions. I have been using Linux since +21 years or so, so it does not affect me personally, but I think Linux needs to become really a LOT more accessible to normal people. And it really has not (on the desktop); all the various "improvements" on GNOME3 or KDE are basically pointless, they have not solved the underlying problem. Ideally problems should be auto-resolvable. If someone wants to use the proprietary nvidia driver, that should be a single click - on ALL Linux distributions. Instead you see some distributions have their own ad-hoc solution and other distributions have no easy solution (for simple people).

[−] folbec 37d ago
I would not be surprised if it was some sort of AI driven mistake.

Some guy somewhere deciding to delegate threat assessment to Copilot or some other automated tool.

[−] hereme888 37d ago
Besides Veracrypt, are there any real alternatives to Bitlocker for total drive encryption in Windows?
[−] baobabKoodaa 37d ago
Can someone please explain the implications for current Windows users of VeraCrypt?
[−] totetsu 36d ago
looks like the latest update was

> Mounir IDRASSI - 7 hours ago > Thank you all for your feedback and your support in getting media attention through various social platforms.

>After posting this, other developers in the security fields (like WireGuard) came forward to announce that they have the exact same issue. I understand why nobody talked publicly about this before and I'm glad that by going public I pushed others to do the same.

>Positive aspect is that a Microsoft VP (Scott Hanselman) has announced on X that he will help address this issue affecting me and others. He also reached out to me and connected me with other Microsoft people to help address this issue.

>I will let you know how things go.

[−] unethical_ban 37d ago
I run a dual boot of windows and am currently dauly-driving CachyOS quite happily. I've been playing some Crimson desert and got some occasional crashes... But any other game I have has run smoothly.

Their GUI tools for package management are thin wrappers on CLI tools, but are enough hand-holding that most people should navigate it fine. More devices worked out of the box for my with Linux than Windows.

Just like if you haven't tried AI in a year and have mocked it, you need to try it again. Of you haven't tried Linux desktop in a few years, you need to try again. CachyOS really does seem to handle the driver installs and gaming compatibility well.

[−] baobabKoodaa 37d ago
Anyone here who could reach out to specific persons inside Microsoft who could fix this?
[−] 1970-01-01 37d ago
Why is there no simple workaround for this? Why is it dead in the water and why can't we use another mechanism to verify the update files with SHA1? It's all been done before [1]. This would be an improvement, as it enables the project to continue working without any handcuffed relationship to Microsoft.

[1] https://github.com/HyperSine/Windows10-CustomKernelSigners

[−] ece 36d ago
If bitlocker wasn't crippled[1] on the home versions of Windows, this would be a non-issue. I hope a solution is found, even if it's 3rd party signing that works like the present solution.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compare-windows-11-h...

[−] francosimon 37d ago
VLayer (my project) scans healthcare codebases for HIPAA compliance issues before they reach production. One thing I learned building it: developers rarely think about encryption until it's too late. Tools like VeraCrypt solve the "data at rest" problem, but the bigger issue in healthcare software is unencrypted data in logs and API responses — stuff that's much harder to audit manually.
[−] trashface 37d ago
Hope this is resolved. I guess I could run linux in a VM and mount volumes there, but this is getting a bit dicey. But Win 10 is my last windows anyway.
[−] ChrisArchitect 37d ago
Update from Scott Hanselman:

> Hey I love dumping on my company as much as the next guy, because Microsoft does some dumb stuff, but sometimes it's just check emails and verify your accounts.

Not every "WTF micro$oft" moment is a slam dunk. I've emailed VeraCrypt personally and we'll get him unblocked. I've already talked to Jason at WireGuard.

Not everything is a conspiracy, sometimes it's literally paperwork.

(https://x.com/shanselman/status/2041977121686585396 https://xcancel.com/shanselman/status/2041977121686585396)

[−] pjdesno 37d ago
Interesting.

My only experience with Veracrypt is via a law firm I was consulting with, who used it to protect some files they were sharing with me. Law firm and their end client are both big, prestigious companies.

[−] orionblastar 37d ago
Gone are the days when one can be anonymous on the Internet. Now, in some places, we have to prove our age and identity. This is leading to a digital ID. This will end badly.
[−] satai 37d ago
Microsoft can't be trusted.

Never was, isn't and I guess won't be.

[−] Havoc 37d ago
Microsoft continues to push for year of the Linux desktop
[−] lofaszvanitt 37d ago
What about the guy who originally created it. Paul Le Roux, the criminal mastermind? That's a wild story :D.
[−] Izmaki 37d ago
Reminds me of when users of TrueCrypt were urged to just install BitLocker instead. Sus AF.
[−] kwar13 37d ago
very much sounds like microsoft
[−] speedgoose 37d ago
It's perhaps naive, but could he create a new organisation, like a "TotallyNotVeraCrypt" French loi 1901 association, at a different address, and create a new microsoft account by making sure it passes all the requirements.
[−] Tsarp 37d ago
For folks looking for a much simpler single binary alternative.

https://github.com/srv1n/kurpod

[−] avaer 37d ago
Forced software signing should be illegal.
[−] swordsith 37d ago
if michalesoft wants to take away our ability to sign drivers, they will find there is more than enough vulnerable easily exploited drivers we can use that are pre-signed online. Thank you micosawft!
[−] teekert 37d ago
I'm sorry, is this some sort of Windows joke that I'm too Linux to understand?
[−] steve1977 37d ago
If only there was a way to sign software and not depend on a centralized authority, something like a... web of trust?

(and yes I know, you'd need to have the option to have "your" (haha...) OS trust it of course)