[ezquerra]

PowerShell is obviously a much better scripting language than the ancient DOS BAT "language" (if you can call it that). In theory it's also mostly ubiquitous on Windows which means that you can rely on it being there when creating a script. Yet I've found that often people keep using BAT files (e.g. in build scripts, etc). I think it is because you cannot just execute a PowerShell script unless it is signed or the user has manually enabled non signed script execution (by executing a command on the PowerShell command). This means you cannot rely on it just working, at which point it's often best to fall back to DOS or use another scripting language such a Python.

I understand that this is done for security reasons, but Windows already lets you execute any executable or BAT file that you might have downloaded from the Internet. So I'm not sure that disabling PowerShell script execution really gains you much (and there are probably other better solutions anyway).

So IMHO as long as DOS is available and PowerShell is so limited by default BAT files will not go away, which is unfortunate.

[Arnavion]

My heart sinks every time I see foo.bat next to foo.ps1, where foo.bat is just `powershell -ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted -Command foo.ps1` so that it's double-click-friendly.

[henrikschroder]

I'm definitely guilty of doing that the very few times I had to write a powershell script.

But what's the alternative? What's the proper way of signing a script, and how much work is it to do that?

[hobs]

Just put your powershell file in an executable, its been around for ages.

https://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/PS2EXE-Convert-PowerSh...

Read more on how to use it at https://redmondmag.com/articles/2017/01/27/convert-a-powersh...

[tveita]

Then you'll have 3 files - the script, the exe, and a little bat file that reruns ps2exe for updates. :)

[userbinator]

Over 18KB for a "Hello World" script (even a native EXE would be smaller)...? A "stub" batch file to execute it is a few dozen bytes at most.

Then again, those using PS probably don't care about such things being small and efficient anyway.

[hobs]

I didn't downvote you, but consider that I answered the GP's question and solved a problem they are having, and you added some snark.

There is plenty of talk in this space about trading off machine resources for programmer effectiveness, so while your gripe is technically accurate that ship has sailed long long ago.

[henrikschroder]

"Furthermore “script execution” have to be allowed (see cmdlet: set-execultionpolicy)."

...and we're back to square one. :-)

[hobs]

If it really needs that, https://blog.netspi.com/15-ways-to-bypass-the-powershell-exe...

[Arnavion]

Well, in my experience the double-click-convenience of .bat files (due to their default cmd.exe association) is the reason people do this, not just the execution policy.

To sign a script you run:

    Set-AuthenticodeSignature foo.ps1 $someCert

and make sure that $someCert 's pubkey is available on every user's computer.

The alternative is of course to get every user to run `Set-ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted` to solve the "problem" permanently.

[throwaway7645]

Yea, there are a few things PS does that makes it almost useless.

[joeyaiello]

(Thanks to ezquerra for bringing me back to the conversation here via Twitter.)

Disclaimer: I'm a PM on PowerShell at Microsoft, and the following is based on my personal observations. There's also no current plan to do any of what I suggested (but it's certainly giving me a lot to think about at the start of my work week).

The default ExecutionPolicy was engrained and controversial long before I joined the PowerShell Team (or even Microsoft), and I'll be the first to admit that, as a long time Linux user, I didn't GET why I couldn't just run arbitrary scripts.

The public Microsoft opinion on the matter has always been that ExecutionPolicy is there to try and prevent yourself from shooting yourself in the foot. In Linux, this is very similar to adding a +x to a script (although that's clearly much simpler than signing a script).

I'd say it's also akin to the red browser pages warning you about self signed certificates, or Microsoft/Apple "preventing" you from running certain app packages that are "untrusted" in one form or another. In one sense, you could actually argue that PowerShell was ahead of the curve.

Now as a power user with much less at a stake than, say, an IT administrator at a Fortune 500 company, the first thing I do with all these restrictions, warnings, and confirmation prompts is to turn them off.

But those warnings (often with no clear way to disable them) are there for a reason. PowerShell was built at a time when Microsoft admins were GUI heavy, and PowerShell did its best to herald them into a scripting world while fostering best practices. And if you're using a bunch of scripts sourced from SMB shares within your domain as a domain administrator, you don't want to accidentally run a script that hadn't gone through your internal validation process (hopefully culminating in the script getting signed by your domain CA).

So let me assume that you agree with everything so far. Why does this experience still stink? Any Microsoft administration worth their salt uses PowerShell, and many of even the power-est of users finds ExecutionPolicy annoying.

In my opinion, it's too hard to sign scripts. We should be following in the footsteps of the drive to get everything on HTTPS (props to Let's Encrypt and HTTPS Everywhere, along with many others). We should have guidance on signing if you have a CA, we should have guidance on getting scripts signed by third party CAs, and we should probably offer a cheap/free service for signing stuff that goes up on the PowerShell Gallery.

Oh, and we should make it easier to read the red error that gets thrown explaining how to lookup a help topic that tells you how to bypass/change ExecutionPolicy.

Unfortunately, that's all easier said than done. But the default being what it is puts the onus on us to do something to make security easier.

[ezquerra]

Thank you Joeyaiello for your reply.

I understand your reasoning. I like some of your proposals. For example I'm all for making it easier to sign scripts, for example. Yet I feel that the possible solutions that you mention ignore the fact that you can bypass this "security" mechanism can be bypassed with a simple BAT file.

Why do PowerShell scripts require more security than a BAT file or an executable? Are users really safer thanks to the ExecutionPolicy check? Or are they simply worse off because people will either use less powerful BAT files or completelly opaque executables? At least with a PowerShell script you are able to inspect the code if you are so inclined. By pushing people to use executables instead they are less likely to know what changes will be done to the system.

If the problem is admins accidentally double clicking on unsigned scripts, by all means show a confirmation dialog (if the script is not signed) when a non signed script is _first_ executed. Actually, do that for BAT files and perhaps even for executables as well. But don't do it (by default at least) when someone calls a script explicitly from a command line or from another script. IMHO that would really make us all safer and would make PowerShell a real replacement for BAT files.