[HN Gopher] WireGuard makes new Windows release following Micros...
___________________________________________________________________
WireGuard makes new Windows release following Microsoft signing
resolution
Recent and related: _Microsoft terminated the account VeraCrypt
used to sign Windows drivers_ -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47686549
Author : zx2c4
Score : 364 points
Date : 2026-04-10 15:49 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lists.zx2c4.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lists.zx2c4.com)
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _The comments that followed were a bit off the rails. There 's
| no conspiracy here from Microsoft. But the Internet discussion
| wound up catching the attention of Microsoft, and a day later,
| the account was unblocked, and all was well. I think this is just
| a case of bureaucratic processes getting a bit out of hand, which
| Microsoft was able to easily remedy. I don't think there's been
| any malice or conspiracy or anything weird._
|
| it _was_ a bit crazy how quickly people got conspiracy-minded
| about it.
|
| microsoft fucked up, and as per typical big-tech, only fixed it
| when noise got made on social media. but not everything is a
| grand conspiracy orchestrated by microsoft or the government or
| whatever. incompetence is always more likely than malice.
|
| any news from the veracrypt maintainers? i would imagine whatever
| microsoft employee got tasked with resolving this issue would
| have also seen that one.
|
| ---
|
| edit: well, i certainly underestimated the response to this
| comment. my mistake for using a common saying rather than being
| extremely explicit when it comes to something as emotionally
| charged as microsoft. i dont think i have seen a comment of mine
| go up and down points so many times before.
|
| what i _intended_ to get across was: "this was not a deliberate,
| coordinated, purposeful attack on the wireguard project, at the
| behest of some microsoft executive, to accomplish some goal of
| making encrypted communication impossible or whatever. instead,
| this was the result of a stupid system, with a stupid resolution
| process (social media), that is _still awful_ , but different in
| important ways from a deliberate attack. this is the typical
| scenario (stupid system, stupid resolution). the non-typical
| scenario would be a deliberate choice made and executed by
| microsoft employees to suddenly destroy a popular project".
|
| i shortened the above paragraph to the common saying
| "incompetence is always more likely than malice". i shouldnt
| have. my bad.
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| > incompetence is always more likely than malice.
|
| "Incompetence" of this degree _is malice_. It is actively
| malicious to create a system that automatically locks people
| out of their accounts with absolutely no possibility for human
| review or recourse short of getting traction in the media. "No
| sir, I didn't grind those orphans up. It was this orphan
| grinding machine I made that did it, teehee!"
| john_strinlai wrote:
| i am positive that you understand the _spirit_ of what that
| saying means.
|
| incompetence is always more likely than [intentional,
| directed] malice.
|
| microsoft employees did not _deliberately attack_ the
| wireguard project with a goal of taking it down for whatever
| grand scheme people 's hatred cooks up. if you have evidence
| that microsoft did this deliberately to ruin the wireguard
| project, please forward it along to jason (the wireguard
| maintainer) and several news outlets.
| acedTrex wrote:
| And the person you are responding is asserting that the
| response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME
| as if it directed and intentional malice. Which is a
| completely valid way to view a fuckup like this.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _response to incompetence of this level should be the
| SAME_
|
| sure.
|
| but this was not a _deliberate attack_ by microsoft
| employees to shutdown wireguard. that is what i was
| trying to say and the essence of the quote in question.
| acedTrex wrote:
| They are saying that "deliberate attack" or not does not
| matter and is not worth pointing out. The response is the
| same so its a worthless point.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not
| worth pointing out?
|
| its, like, the only thing worth pointing out. if
| microsoft is deliberately targeting projects and
| literally attacking them, that would be _huge_ fucking
| news. like crazy news. lawsuits galore.
| acedTrex wrote:
| > whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not
| worth pointing out?
|
| Correct in cases like this we are discussing it as a
| meaningless distinction.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Microsoft drove a truck through a school yard at 150mph.
| It was not a deliberate attack, it was just the fastest
| route and their map says there's a highway there. Is it
| malice?
|
| A certain level of recklessness is automatically malice.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _[...] It was not a deliberate attack [...]_
|
| in that case, it certainly wouldnt be called a deliberate
| attack, right?
|
| the edit in my original comment should hopefully clear up
| any confusion of my intended point. and, well... the
| comment you replied to should also make it clear that my
| entire point is centered around something being
| deliberate attack vs. ridiculous incompetence.
|
| the _deliberateness_ of it is the entirety of the reason
| i wrote my comment. choosing the phrase "malice vs.
| incompetence" was a poor choice on my part, when i should
| have been extremely explicit. it would have avoided all
| of this back-and-forth.
| bronson wrote:
| And I'm positive that you understand the spirit of the post
| you're replying to.
|
| The saying implies that incompetence and malice are polar
| opposites. They're not.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _The saying implies that incompetence and malice are
| polar opposites._
|
| it does not
| r14c wrote:
| I mean, sure, but at a certain point negligent incompetence
| is directly harmful and the motives or lack thereof are
| just context.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| "just context" is important.
|
| i get that everyone has a frothing-at-the-mouth extreme
| hatred to microsoft and its employees. but microsoft did
| not say "fuck jason, fuck wireguard, lets try and shut
| that down". that would be a _way_ different story.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| It doesn't matter. They are doing things that are clearly
| hostile to users, they should pay dearly for it.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| get mad at the shitty stuff they do (there is a lot!),
| not the fictitious things people come up with in hn
| comments.
| ziml77 wrote:
| It's so unhelpful for people to get mad at made up crap.
| It completely weakens the impact of the pushback. Like if
| someone is in a position where people are getting mad
| over all sorts of made up stuff anyway, what's even the
| point of avoiding actually doing any of the things
| they're mad about? Might as well get something out of it
| if the downside doesn't change either way.
| r14c wrote:
| What's the accountability mechanism here? Make a big fuss
| online and hope the bad press outweighs the negligence?
| john_strinlai wrote:
| i point out in my original comment that i think it is
| stupid that the only way to resolve this sort of thing is
| via social media. i think it is _insane_. and the lack of
| accountability is also crazy, given the influence
| microsoft (and other big tech) has over everyday life.
|
| i think people are reading my comment as some sort of
| defense of microsoft. its not.
|
| all i wanted to emphasize was that this incident, while
| obviously ridiculous, did not come about because a bunch
| of microsoft employees sat in a cigar-smoke filled room
| saying "lets destroy wireguard".
| wtallis wrote:
| Microsoft's incompetence is certainly _reckless_ at a
| minimum, and often manifests in ways that come across as
| misanthropic toward their users. They don 't really fit the
| pattern of mere bumbling fools.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| sure!
|
| my point was that it wasnt a deliberate conspiracy/attack
| to fuck over wireguard, which would be an absolutely
| crazy story if it were true.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| what about pattern of bumbling fools on crack ?
| tialaramex wrote:
| Where possible I recommend not caring because figuring out
| whether malice was present is difficult and you can likely
| address a problem without needing to be sure.
|
| For example by creating working processes which never end
| up "accidentally" causing awful outcomes. This is sometimes
| more expensive, but we should ensure that the resulting
| lack of goodwill if you don't is unaffordable.
|
| Worst case there _is_ malice and you 've now made it more
| difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made things
| easier for those who remain committed to looking for
| malice, including criminal prosecutors.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _Worst case there is malice and you 've now made it
| more difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made
| things easier for those who remain committed to looking
| for malice, including criminal prosecutors._
|
| i am quoting the maintainer of the project. take it up
| with them if you think microsoft coordinated a directed
| attack on their project.
| mlyle wrote:
| I think you're missing the point of the person you're
| replying to.
|
| It's really easy to end up with procedural machinery that
| makes it unpleasant for other entities that you don't
| like.
|
| It seems to get the things that you do like and value
| less often. Why? Because you think about the consequences
| to what you consider important and you're inclined to
| ignore potential consequences to those you oppose or are
| competing with.
|
| The Vogons weren't necessarily _overtly malicious_ when
| they obliterated Earth.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _" hostage speaks well of hostage-taker"_
| john_strinlai wrote:
| if you think i am defending microsoft, your hatred has
| blinded you to what my comments are actually saying.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Why would I think that? That isn't a sensible conclusion
| from what I posted. I think you replied to the wrong post
|
| Regardless of what the maintainer says of their abuser
| after being abused, the point I think you are getting
| stuck on is this:
|
| Creating a system which locks you out if you don't speak
| to a human isn't de-facto malicious.
|
| Having support where you _can 't_ speak to a human isn't
| de-facto malicious, either.
|
| Doing both at the same time, however, _is_ de-facto
| malicious. Some executives likely got bonuses for doing
| it, too.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| you said "hostage speaks well of hostage-taker" in
| response to my comment.
|
| i interpreted that as you saying i am the hostage of
| microsoft, and have stockholm syndrome, therefor am
| speaking well of (defending) microsoft.
|
| if i misinterpreted that, my bad. are you calling jason
| the hostage?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Yes, the maintainer continues to be held hostage by
| Microsoft, so it is no surprise that they don't publicly
| denounce Microsoft or ascribe ill intent or in any way
| speak ill of Microsoft.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| my bad for misinterpreting your comment.
| izacus wrote:
| Except that the system that removes culpability, visibility
| and consequences of this kind of abuse is set up
| deliberately to avoid liability and consequences of such
| actions.
|
| This isn't a tee-hee accident, this is deliberate
| organizational design which removed any kind of bad
| consequences or even thought about what the software does
| to user from the engineers at Microsoft. They're happy
| about that. They now don't need to deal with that. And if
| you'll ask them, they will refuse a change that will make
| them responsible for abuse of their users.
|
| So, to hell with them :)
| john_strinlai wrote:
| and even with all of that in mind, this was not a
| coordinated microsoft attack against wireguard. which was
| my point.
|
| i am in no way defending microsoft. just pointing out
| that the conspiracy-theorists suggesting that some exec
| at microsoft specifically targeted wireguard for whatever
| nefarious purpose was, well, a conspiracy.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Malicious people are quite good at feigning incompetence.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Conspiracy 1: rules from on-high about encryption projects to
| be suppressed. Debunked.
|
| Conspiracy 2: Copilot all the things! Probably not too far off.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| i think they have explicitly made it clear that they want to
| copilot all of the things (unfortunately), so i dont quite
| file it under the conspiracy label.
| wongarsu wrote:
| If it's not a conspiracy (and to be clear, I don't think it
| is one) its still a failure on multiple levels of the
| organisation
|
| We can probably blame copilot for the email about new
| verification reqirements not going out to everyone. Maybe
| even for the reports of people who jumped through all the
| hoops and still got blocked as if they hadn't. But rolling
| out new verification reqirements, then not monitoring how
| many developers fulfill your new reqirements and following
| up is entirely on Microsoft employees. That's management
| failure and disregard for developers on their platform
| trinsic2 wrote:
| With the way things are going right now with all the corruption
| in governments and corporations were way past the point of
| giving the benefit of the doubt. These organizations are
| clearly making changes to their OS's to slowly remove user
| control.
|
| Everything should be treat as suspicious moving forward and I
| am glad of the skepticism.
| sscaryterry wrote:
| The question is, did they notify the user that the account
| was blocked, or was it done silently? My money is on the
| latter, obviously I don't know, just my guess. Was there a
| reason? Blocked is semantically harsher, than it has been
| disabled.
| billziss wrote:
| It was done silently. I am one of the affected developers
| and my software is the open source file system driver
| WinFsp:
|
| https://github.com/winfsp/winfsp
| sscaryterry wrote:
| Uncool. Now the question is, how many people, many not
| reading hn, are actually affected. Seems like a blanket
| ban of some sort.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| > it was a bit crazy how quickly people got conspiracy-minded
| about it.
|
| That's just the side effect of the Soross tracking chips hidden
| in vaccines activated by 5g towers
| orbital-decay wrote:
| All this doesn't matter. What matters is the destructive
| potential and a breach of trust. CAs have been distrusted for
| less.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _CAs have been distrusted for less._
|
| root programs are _super_ specific about root cause analysis,
| what actions lead up to distrust, differentiating deliberate
| maliciousness from systemic incompetence, etc.
|
| its like the exact opposite of "all this doesnt matter".
|
| of course they still look at the outcome (danger to users,
| etc.), typically as a first step. but they take great care to
| determine exactly what lead up to a specific outcome.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| It really depends on the scale of the breach, for example
| DigiNotar was immediately killed for their gross
| incompetence. In this case even the scale is unclear, with
| heavy suspicion towards malice and little hope on fixing
| any process inside that monstrous bureaucracy or even
| making it meaningfully care if it's not. I see no reason to
| trust Microsoft anymore, regardless of it being a fuckup or
| malice.
| Scaled wrote:
| Society is a bit fatigued of big tech companies making their
| various accounts essential and then locking people out of them
| without any due process.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| yes, i am in agreement. i tried to be extremely clear in my
| edit that i think that the whole social media being the only
| way to get an account back is crazy stupid.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Microsoft lost the benefit of the doubt decades ago.
| themafia wrote:
| Who needs conspiracy?
|
| Microsoft has entitled itself to decide what I can and cannot
| run on the computer and OS that I paid for, this earns them no
| additional revenue, so they don't care to do a good job.
|
| This system will never work properly.
| zx2c4 wrote:
| As I mentioned in the mailing list post, the Microsoft paperwork
| shuffling matter got dealt with rather quickly, following all the
| attention the HN thread from the other day got. And now we're
| finally out with an update!
|
| NT programming is a lot of fun, though this release was quite
| challenging, because of all of the toolchain updates. On the plus
| side, we got to remove pre-Win10 support --
| https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2026-March/00954... .
| But did you know that Microsoft removed support for compiling x86
| drivers in their latest driver SDK? So that was interesting to
| work around. There was also a fun change to the Go runtime
| included in this release:
| https://github.com/golang/go/commit/341b5e2c0261cc059b157f1c...
|
| All and all, a fun release, and I'm happy to have the Windows
| release train cooking again.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Off topic: Thanks for wireguard. It is a truly great piece of
| software.
| sammy2255 wrote:
| Good to know everything was resolved, but did you ever find out
| why your signing account was suspended? That's not something
| you brush off as haha silly Microsoft..
| Xunjin wrote:
| They should definitely put up a statement addressing it.
| Moreover what they plan in the future to avoid such traumatic
| event, this is not a "simple sign program", this touches
| fundamental parts of the OS.
| Leherenn wrote:
| Apparently it's quite widespread, so I would assume a bug on
| their side. That's what support seemed to imply at least.
| We're still blocked at my company for one month+ now.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| "so I would assume a bug on their side"
|
| Why a "bug".
| alekratz wrote:
| For something like this, I would generalize a "bug" to
| encompass both software and human processes. Some
| decision-maker saw some metrics consistent with spam and
| enacted a spam-blocking measure. Any decision like this
| is going to lead to false positives. Maybe they decided
| "I don't need to confer with anyone", or maybe they did
| and got the green light even after multiple eyeballs
| looked at it. I'm not saying that this does any good for
| Microsoft's already-sullied trust, but mistakes happen
| and combating spam is a constantly evolving arms race.
| There's no way any organization is going to get it 100%
| of the time even after decades of dealing with it.
| Leherenn wrote:
| I doubt someone manually went and flagged all the
| accounts as invalid suddenly or whatever and that was
| their goal. By a bug I mean some kind of automated action
| that did not produce the expected outcome.
|
| Also because, at least on our side, the account was in an
| inconsistent state: we were correctly enrolled/validated,
| but could not access the signing interface.
| fhn wrote:
| With Microsoft, I assume malice AND negligence first. The
| hostility they've shown toward their own users tells you
| everything you need to know.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| Microsoft are saying it's because those accounts didn't
| undergo verification for the Windows Hardware Program
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/09/microsoft_dev_account.
| ..
| walrus01 wrote:
| I understand it's because it's a device driver, but why
| should a pure software publisher which has no hardware
| product of any sort be required to go through a "hardware
| program" gatekeeper of what binaries a person can choose to
| install and run on their own computer?
| rstupek wrote:
| They started it because the drivers people used to use
| from hardware vendors would routinely blue screen
| windows, which made MS look like the reason windows would
| crash. Hardware vendors are notoriously inept at
| software.
| VertanaNinjai wrote:
| I think their point was that Wireguard has no physical
| hardware, so it's strange as a software project they'd be
| forced to go through verification for a hardware program.
| rlpb wrote:
| It sounds more like a "driver program" gatekeeper so you
| are arguing about semantics. I'm not claiming that there
| is no problem, just that an argument based on the
| distinction between "hardware" and "driver" is void.
| mavhc wrote:
| https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardware-dev-
| center...
| unquietwiki wrote:
| Hey there, thank you for pushing this out. I saw there's a
| 0.6.1 update now, that also reboots the machine after updating.
| I don't remember if it said it'd do said reboot...
| e12e wrote:
| Somewhat on the side - but is there a wireguard that works well
| for ReactOS? Does the windows version just work fine?
|
| Just curious how/if the version support might work out for
| ReactOS.
| zx2c4 wrote:
| Good question! I've never tried. The NT driver makes use of
| some of the more advanced features of the networking stack,
| so possibly not. But you never know. I'd love a Wg4React.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| ReactOS was, at one time, targeting a Windows Server
| 2003-level of compatibility. With that in mind I can't
| imagine current Wireguard would have even a shred of hope
| of working on ReactOS.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I really appreciate what you wrote in that post re: dropping
| support for pre-Windows 10 operating systems.
| rkagerer wrote:
| I'd like to snag that latest previous version which still has
| compatibility with older OS's, anyone have a reliable link
| handy?
|
| (I couldn't quickly find a "Previous Versions" list on their
| website)
| chenxiaolong wrote:
| It looks like all the old files are still hosted on the
| server. You can just replace the version number in the
| download links with one of the tags from
| https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-windows.
| politelemon wrote:
| Your work is always appreciated.
| worble wrote:
| > following all the attention the HN thread from the other day
| got
|
| That's great for you, and no offense, but what about developers
| who can't get buzz in a HN thread? Are they just doomed? Why is
| support only available to those who can raise a ruckus on
| social media?
| walrus01 wrote:
| The broader general problem is that it should not be necessary
| to attempt amplification of a message via HN or X or other
| platforms to get a company to have a real human pay attention
| to something, and write a hand crafted response.
|
| This seems to increasingly be the norm with people who have had
| their accounts locked, deleted or restricted by automated
| systems. You have to _hope_ that you can write a message and
| get it amplified via some sort of platform read by hundreds of
| thousands of people, and get people to reshare your message, in
| order to get any form of traction.
|
| If you're not somebody well known, noteworthy or somehow
| significant in a community your likelihood of having your
| message successfully amplified is much lower.
| manbash wrote:
| Happy to see it resolved and I hope the other developers are able
| to have the same experience.
|
| By the way, was it only for the Windows application, or was
| wireguard-go was also affected?
| zx2c4 wrote:
| This was just for WireGuardNT, the kernel driver for the NT
| kernel that Windows uses.
|
| This project -- https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-nt/about/ -- is
| used by this app -- https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-
| windows/about/ . The former is what the signing situation was
| about. The latter is just signed using a normal boring (but
| very expensive!) EV code signing certificate from one of the
| CAs.
| c0l0 wrote:
| As a wireguard user myself (even on the lone Windows machine that
| I still begrundingly have), I am happy that this problem could
| have been resolved. I am just wondering - if there _had not_ been
| this kind of public outcry and outrage that Mr. Donenfeld
| discounts in his announcement message, would the issue have been
| fixed by now?
|
| What are individual developers of "lesser" (less important, less
| visible, less used) software with a Windows presence to do? Wait
| and pray for Goliath to make the first benevolent move, like all
| the folks who got locked out forever from their Google accounts
| on a whim? Ha!
|
| The fact of the matter is, the code signing requirements on
| Windows are a serious threat to Free and Open Source Software on
| the platform. Code signing requirements are a threat to FOSS on
| all platforms that support this technique, and infinitely more so
| where it's effectively mandatory. I firmly believe that these
| days, THIS is the preferred angle/vector for Microsoft to kill
| the software variety their C-levels once publicly bad-mouthed as
| "cancer", and zx2c4 is one of the poor frogs being slowly boiled
| alive. Just not this time - yet.
| x0x0 wrote:
| I got a modestly-similar situation resolved by buying a support
| package and spending 4+ hours across ... not sure, but probably
| 4-5 support calls? It's been 5 years. If memory serves it was
| the $200/mo support package for Azure.
|
| In retrospect, I should have not spent 3 weeks trying to get
| their incompetent software to work and just gone straight to
| phone calls. And at least in my case, the support agents seemed
| broadly unfamiliar, but seemed to have access to higher-
| priority internal case submission which did finally get to
| someone who could fix my issue.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| They would be ignored. Having an audience is key to getting
| problems solved, whether it's a lone hacker or a large
| corporation. Without an audience, you have no leverage. At that
| point you might as well create a new Windows account and re-
| apply, since that would have more luck than getting around a
| "we've closed your account and there's no appeal process"
| barrier.
|
| If that sounds Kafkaesque, it is. It's a small miracle that
| getting a post to the top of HN can surmount such bureaucracy
| at all.
|
| The best way to get an audience is to tell a compelling story.
| Make it interesting. There are ways of doing that for even the
| least known developers.
|
| My point is to push back against the idea that it should be
| fair to everyone and that what's morally right should prevail
| in every case. The hardware developer program doesn't exist to
| treat every developer fairly. They exist to make money for
| Microsoft. pg puts it more eloquently here:
| https://paulgraham.com/judgement.html
| elcritch wrote:
| It makes me think tech communities need to lobby for more
| laws to ensure fair access to platforms, app stores, etc. Be
| that at least side loading apps, etc.
|
| Otherwise we'll eventually all get lost in the kafkaesque
| technocracies.
|
| Less for moral reading, but to keep from being squashed by
| the weight of tech.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| While this is a small problem for software (and hardware) that
| needs custom kernel drivers, or software that needs to run as
| administrator, you seem to have jumped a long way past that to
| rant about FOSS on Windows with no justification- general
| unsigned software works just fine on Windows as it always has.
| maltris wrote:
| LibreOffice, VeraCrypt, WireGuard. 2 questions:
|
| Whats next?
|
| Is that a pattern?
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| What has LibreOffice got to do with any of this?
| Terr_ wrote:
| Perhaps this from last year, though it doesn't directly
| involve code-signing: https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-
| bans-libreoffice-devel...
| IvyMike wrote:
| Maybe this from 8 months ago?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728369
| quantum_magpie wrote:
| MS has a history of fucking up LibreOffice installs.
|
| https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/General/General_Inst.
| ..
| elAhmo wrote:
| I am sure this is by accident, MS would never try to
| discourage users from installing free alternatives to their
| offerings.
| Lihh27 wrote:
| yeah three projects, one account lock, everyone's users stop
| getting updates. that's the pattern
| direwolf20 wrote:
| And Windscribe
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Was the issue resolved for VeraCrypt as well?
| IshKebab wrote:
| I don't think you can let them off that easily, given that the
| only effective support channel was "get to the front page of
| hacker news", which isn't usually an option.
| looneysquash wrote:
| But what would have happened if they weren't able to get
| Microsoft's attention through an outside channel (this site) and
| had to go through the normal process?
|
| I'm glad it was resolved quickly for WireGuard, but I'm concerned
| the results won't generalize.
|
| Also, thanks for WireGuard!
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| > and had to go through the normal process?
|
| There is no normal process. The error message clearly states
| "There are no appeals available, we have closed your
| application".
|
| If the company makes it impossible for you to communicate with
| them, the only recourse is to draw public attention to it in
| order to shame them. This only works if you can gather enough
| public support and kick up enough of a stink about it. All of
| the small developers still locked out of their accounts are
| screwed.
| Aurornis wrote:
| There was a lot of speculation about this issue because readers
| assumed that WireGuard's was _the only_ account that got locked.
| There was actually a wave of account locks that happened at the
| same time. If you only saw one of the headlines you might assume
| it was targeted or the result of some directed conspiracy, not
| the result of a widespread process.
|
| Microsoft did a (very!) bad job of communicating what was
| happening, but The Register has more information:
|
| > He explained that both deactivations were executed as part of
| the Windows Hardware Program's account verification procedures.
|
| > The company published a blog in October, giving devs a two-week
| warning that if their accounts had not been verified since April
| 2024, Microsoft would issue mandatory account verification
| notifications.
|
| > "We worked hard to make sure partners understood this was
| coming, from emails, banners, reminders," said Davuluri.
| shevy-java wrote:
| What's going on at Microsoft? Why did they suddenly declare war
| on VPN and related software projects?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Wouldn't comply with CIA backdoor requirements, but now they do
| ;)
| tamimio wrote:
| > I don't think there's been any malice or conspiracy or anything
| weird
|
| Wink if there's someone else in the room :)
| redeeman wrote:
| and imagine for those guys that dont have the reach
| wireguard/veracrypt does.
|
| NEVER trust microsoft, NEVER trust any mechanism people dont 100%
| control themselves. having to rely on microsoft to sign stuff is
| an abomination and something nobody should do
| everdrive wrote:
| An interesting point I don't think I've seen someone make --
| people compare the LLM revolution to other technical revolutions.
| You don't need to worry about skill decay in the same way that
| you don't know how to bake bread from unprocessed wheat, or you
| don't know how to build a loom, etc.
|
| But local models aside (which no matter the protests from HN,
| will only be available to the technically savvy few) all of these
| LLMs are a service, so, the company could degrade the service,
| they could charge more than you're willing or able to pay, they
| could ban you. They could disable your account with no meaningful
| way appeal or seek support. LLMs could look at lot more like the
| scenario in this thread than something like not knowing how to
| make your own shoes.
| kbelder wrote:
| It might settle into a situation where _cutting edge_ LLMs are
| a service, while older and smaller LLMs are self-hosted. So you
| are not at risk of being cut off, but of being degraded.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Why do people put so much effort into supporting a hostile
| platform? I really don't get it.
| golem14 wrote:
| Since the impact of the account is presumably known to Microsoft
| (through telemetry etc), they probably know when these accounts
| get turned off, and can mark them in case the owner comes back
| and tries recovery.
|
| Microsoft would not have to automatically and 100% correctly
| reinstate the account. The goal would be to get high level cases
| like this one in front of a knowledgable human _before_ the
| locked account posts angry owner posts complaints in public (If
| Joe Bloe 's defragmentation utility noone has ever heard of and
| only having 10 installs goes bad, noone would care.)
|
| Here, they don't have to be perfect - you just need to have
| enough signal-to-voice ratio that employing a very small number
| of people outweighs the cost to PR and execs to deal with these
| cases, and to not let accounts get hacked through recovery.
|
| The response from Microsoft [1] is not great, or makes me
| hopeful.
|
| ``` Pavan Davuluri, Microsoft's President of Windows and Devices,
| said both Idrassi and Donenfeld should have their accounts
| restored "soon."
|
| "We've seen these reports and are actively working to resolve
| this as quickly as possible," Davuluri Xeeted. "We've reached out
| to VeraCrypt and have spoken to Jason at WireGuard, they should
| be back up and running soon."
|
| He explained that both deactivations were executed as part of the
| Windows Hardware Program's account verification procedures.
|
| The company published a blog in October, giving devs a two-week
| warning that if their accounts had not been verified since April
| 2024, Microsoft would issue mandatory account verification
| notifications.
|
| "We worked hard to make sure partners understood this was coming,
| from emails, banners, reminders," said Davuluri.
|
| "And we know that sometimes things still get missed. We're taking
| this as an opportunity to review how we communicate changes like
| this and make sure we're doing it better."
|
| ```
|
| [1]
| https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/09/microsoft_dev_account...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-10 23:00 UTC)