Windows Baseline Security Mode and UTC: Secure by Default with Consent

Microsoft’s plan to make Windows “secure by default” hinges on two tightly coupled ideas: a default-deny runtime integrity posture called Windows Baseline Security Mode (BSM), and a system-wide User Transparency and Consent (UTC) model that surfaces mobile-style permission prompts and auditable permissions for apps and AI agents. These changes, announced as part of Microsoft’s Secure Future Initiative and the Windows Resiliency Initiative, mark a deliberate shift away from the long-standing permissive posture of the platform toward a consent-first, auditable security baseline.

---

Background​

For years Microsoft has built defenses into Windows as optional or add-on features—things like Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC), Device Guard, Hypervisor‑Protected Code Integrity (HVCI), and Smart App Control. Those features have hardened endpoints when deployed, but they were typically opt‑in or complex to manage. The new announcements aim to consolidate those primitives into a single, auditable baseline that the OS will advertise and enforce by default, while pairing the baseline with a clear, revocable permission model for runtime resource access.
Microsoft frames this move as a response to modern threat trends—particularly supply‑chain and signing abuse, and the rise of agentic or AI‑driven tools that can automate misconfigurations into large-scale compromises. By locking down what can execute by default and requiring explicit consent for sensitive actions, Microsoft is attempting to close widely exploited blind spots while still offering controlled escape hatches for legitimate workflows.

---

What Microsoft announced​

Windows Baseline Security Mode (BSM)​

BSM establishes a default-deny runtime integrity posture: at runtime, Windows will refuse to execute applications, services, or drivers that do not meet specified signing and attestation requirements unless an explicit, auditable exception exists. The feature consolidates and standardizes protections offered separately by WDAC, Device Guard, HVCI and Smart App Control into one canonical OS-level baseline. Administrators can pre-authorize apps across fleets; unmanaged users can request and grant exceptions; and developers will have APIs to detect whether BSM is active and whether particular components have exceptions.
Key points about BSM:

• Only properly signed binaries, services, and drivers are allowed to run by default.
• Exceptions are auditable, revocable, and manageable at scale by IT.
• Developer-facing APIs let installers and apps query enforcement state and fail gracefully with remediation guidance.

User Transparency and Consent (UTC)​

UTC brings a mobile-style permission model to Windows. From the moment an app—or an AI agent acting on behalf of the user—attempts to access sensitive resources (file system locations, camera, microphone, or the ability to install additional software), Windows will show a clear, human-readable consent prompt that names the requesting principal and the action requested. Choices will include options such as Allow once, Allow always, or Deny / Ask every time, with time‑boxed permissions that expire when the process closes. All decisions are logged so users and IT can audit who accessed what and when. Microsoft also plans special handling for agentic AI principals, treating them as distinct identities with their own recorded provenance.
Together, BSM and UTC are intended to (1) reduce the attack surface by limiting what code can run and what resources can be accessed silently, and (2) create an auditable trail of consent decisions that both users and administrators can review.

---

How BSM enforces integrity (technical overview)​

BSM is a policy-and-enforcement layer that sits on top of Windows’ existing integrity primitives. It is not simply another userland whitelist; the approach is enforced at a lower level—kernel policy decisions analogous to how HVCI and WDAC operate—so it aims to be harder to bypass than third‑party AV whitelists.
Core enforcement mechanics:

• Signing and attestation checks at runtime: When the OS evaluates an executable, service, or driver, it consults the baseline policy to verify signatures and attestation claims before allowing execution.
• Kernel‑level enforcement: Decisions are made at a level intended to survive tampering, similar to virtualization-based protections and HVCI.
• Auditable exceptions: Exceptions are recorded and visible to administrators; the policy supports centralized simulation, rollouts, and pre‑authorization of known-good binaries for enterprise fleets.

BSM will require vendors and developers to adopt stronger signing practices and to plan for attestation where appropriate. Microsoft is exposing APIs that allow applications and installers to check BSM state, detect when they are blocked, and provide in-app guidance or self‑remediation flows. That developer-facing visibility is intended to reduce surprise failures for legitimate apps.
Caveat: some details around policy semantics (exact certificate chains, attestation formats, and how Microsoft will manage cross‑platform or legacy driver signing) remain implementation details in the announcement. Organizations should treat these specifics as subject to change until Microsoft publishes the BSM technical specification.

---

How User Transparency and Consent will behave in practice​

UTC focuses on authorization at the resource level rather than just on execution. The system introduces standardized runtime prompts for sensitive actions and revocable, auditable permissions. This is a substantial UX change for desktop Windows, aligning it more closely with mobile platforms while keeping PC workflows in mind.
Notable features:

• Granular, named prompts: Dialogs that clearly identify the requesting app or agent, the exact resource (e.g., a folder path, microphone, camera), and action requested.
• Temporary grants: Options to allow access only for the current session (time‑boxed), reducing long‑lived permission creep.
• Audit trails and admin visibility: Every grant and denial is logged; enterprise tools will be able to surface permission histories centrally.
• Agent-aware controls: AI agents will carry distinct identities; their actions and permissions will be tracked separately from the hosting app or OS, yielding better provenance for automated behaviors.

UTC is explicitly framed as enabling transparency for both users and IT while preventing covert actions—such as silent installers or background agents installing additional components—without explicit consent. However, the platform will need to balance security with usability: overly aggressive prompts can drive users to reflexively click “Allow,” while too few prompts reduce the benefit. This is a central UX challenge Microsoft must solve.

---

Why this matters: threat models and anticipated benefits​

• Smaller default attack surface: By blocking unsigned or improperly signed code from executing by default, BSM removes many traditional channels attackers use for persistence and privilege escalation (unsigned installers, rogue services, and permissive driver loading). This change reduces the utility of “living-off-the‑land” and unsigned payloads.
• Better protection against supply‑chain and signing abuse: Requiring stronger provenance and offering auditable exceptions makes it harder for attackers to leverage forged or repurposed signing artifacts without being detected.
• Auditability and governance: UTC’s logs and revocable permissions create forensic trails and governance controls that enterprises can use during incident response and compliance audits.
• Agentic AI mitigation: Treating AI agents as first‑class principals with identity and provenance reduces the risk of opaque automation performing sensitive actions unnoticed. This is an explicit response to concerns about autonomous agent behavior in adversarial hands.

Taken together, these changes can materially raise the bar for attackers who previously relied on unsigned code, legacy installers, permissive drivers, or opaque automation to establish persistence and evade detection.

---

Risks, trade-offs and potential pitfalls​

The technical promise is strong, but the transition carries measurable operational and security risks:

• Compatibility backlash: Windows’ historical strength has been compatibility. Locking the default runtime posture could break legitimate legacy applications, specialized drivers, or internal tools that lack modern signing. Enterprises that rely on bespoke software will need careful exception governance.
• Helpdesk and operations load: Expect an initial spike in support tickets related to blocked installers, drivers, and services. IT teams must prepare workflows to approve, audit, and remediate exceptions without crippling user productivity.
• Prompt fatigue and user behavior: More dialogs can lead to habituation; users may grant permissions reflexively, negating UTC’s protection unless prompts are designed to be informative and rate-limited for frequent legitimate actions.
• Signing key security: Moving trust onto code signing increases the impact of compromised signing keys. If an attacker obtains a vendor’s signing key or successfully forges attestations, BSM’s protections could be bypassed. Robust key management, revocation, and attestation protections will be crucial. This is a high‑risk scenario that Microsoft and vendors must address operationally.
• False sense of security: Organizations might over-rely on default guards and neglect telemetry, patching, and least-privilege practices. BSM and UTC are powerful layers, but not panaceas.

Wherever claims in the announcement point to exact enforcement semantics (certificate chains, ephemeral attestation primitives, or agent identity formats) those details are still subject to change and should be treated as implementation plans rather than final guarantees. Administrators should validate behavior in preview channels before broad deployment.

---

Preparing developers: technical and operational steps​

Developers and ISVs must treat this change as a platform shift. The following steps are pragmatic preparedness actions:

• Ensure robust code signing
• Adopt platform‑recommended signing algorithms and certificate chains. Protect private keys with hardware-backed HSMs or equivalent. Monitor for and plan key rotation. Signing is now a first-order security control.
• Adopt attestation where appropriate
• Use device or app attestation features when available to provide stronger provenance for drivers or privileged components. This helps meet BSM attestation requirements.
• Implement permissive, clear failure modes
• Use the developer APIs to detect BSM enforcement and provide clear, actionable remediation UX—e.g., offer an “Open support page” or “Request exception” flow rather than crashing silently.
• Test against simulated baselines
• Use Microsoft’s promised simulation tooling to run apps in an environment that mirrors BSM before production rollout. This reduces surprises for customers.
• Prepare installer and driver lifecycles
• Revisit installer technologies and driver update mechanisms to ensure they work under a consent-first model. Minimize behaviors that require broad, persistent permissions.
• Document agent behaviors and provenance
• If your app ships with or exposes AI agents, design agent identities and auditing metadata so UTC can identify actions and prompt users appropriately.
• Plan customer education
• Provide guidance to users and admins explaining why prompts appear, and how to distinguish legitimate requests from suspicious ones to avoid naive approvals.

---

Preparing IT and security teams​

Enterprise readiness needs governance, tooling, and training. Recommended steps:

• Create an exceptions policy and approval workflow that balances security with productivity.
• Use simulation tools to identify likely blockers and high‑risk apps before enabling BSM broadly.
• Train helpdesk staff and automate common exception approvals for trusted vendor applications.
• Instrument centralized audit dashboards to monitor UTC grants and BSM exception events.
• Coordinate with software vendors to ensure critical apps are signed and tested against BSM.

Enterprises should pilot BSM and UTC in controlled cohorts—starting with non‑critical user groups—then expand using automated policy rollouts and telemetry feedback loops. This phased rollout approach is what Microsoft has signaled in the announcement and is essential to avoid catastrophic disruption.

---

Realistic security gains and remaining attack paths​

BSM and UTC close many common avenues of exploitation, but some high-risk vectors remain:

• Compromised or stolen signing keys — if an attacker gains access to legitimate signing material, they can produce artifacts that pass BSM checks. This makes key protection and revocation mechanisms critical.
• Social engineering to obtain consent — UTC is only as strong as users; determined attackers can craft convincing prompts or phish users into approving malicious actions. User education and contextual UX signals are necessary mitigations.
• Misconfigured exceptions — poorly governed exceptions lists in enterprise environments can become a backdoor; exception governance must be auditable and periodically reviewed.
• Attacks on attestation infrastructure — if attestation services are attacked or subverted, the trust chain breaks; Microsoft and partners must defend attestation endpoints vigorously.

In short, BSM and UTC materially reduce the easy paths to compromise, but defenders must continue to manage keys, attestations, user behavior, and exception governance to avoid new single points of failure.

---

UX and human factors: getting prompts right​

The success of UTC depends on prompt quality and context:

• Prompts must name the principal and action clearly, avoiding technical jargon.
• Offer contextual cues (why does this app need access now?) and an easy path to revoke permissions.
• Use time‑boxed allowances by default for high‑sensitivity actions and only escalate to persistent grants when the user demonstrates a repeatable need.

If Microsoft designs the consent UX poorly, the risk is twofold: users develop unsafe habits and legitimate workflows fracture. On the other hand, a well‑designed consent layer gives users and admins a practical, audit-ready control surface that materially improves platform trust.

---

Timeline, rollout and what to expect next​

Microsoft has described a phased rollout that begins with greater visibility (insider previews and enterprise simulation tools), then moves to developer APIs and finally to broader enablement across consumer and enterprise channels. Exact dates and the cadence of each phase were not specified in the announcement, so organizations should watch preview channels closely, validate behavior in test rings, and plan migration windows rather than assuming an immediate switch. Treat the current messaging as a roadmap rather than a final schedule.

---

Final assessment and recommended actions​

Microsoft’s twin announcements—Windows Baseline Security Mode and User Transparency and Consent—represent a meaningful evolution in how Windows defends endpoints. The approach intelligently combines low‑level integrity enforcement with a user‑visible, auditable consent model, and it directly targets modern threats such as signing abuse and agentic automation. If executed with the promised developer APIs, robust signing and attestation support, and careful UX design, this could be one of the most impactful platform security changes in years.
However, the move will not be friction‑free. Compatibility issues, helpdesk load, signing key management, and potential prompt fatigue are real operational hazards. To realize the security promise while minimizing cost and disruption, organizations should:

• Start pilots now in test rings and use Microsoft’s simulation tooling.
• Harden signing key management and adopt attestation where appropriate.
• Build exception governance and automated approval workflows.
• Educate users and helpdesk teams about the new consent model and safe behaviors.

Treat BSM and UTC not as a silver bullet but as foundational controls that, when combined with patching, least‑privilege practices, and strong telemetry, can materially raise the cost of compromise for attackers. The platform is shifting from permissive to protective—how successful that shift will be depends on Microsoft’s implementation details, vendor readiness, and the community’s discipline in adopting the model.

---

In the coming months expect deeper technical guidance from Microsoft, preview builds that reveal real-world compatibility impacts, and a flurry of vendor activity to modernize signing and installer behavior. The direction is clear: Windows intends to be more assertive about what it allows to run, and it will require users and administrators to make fewer blind trusts and more explicit, auditable decisions.

---

Source: heise online Signed applications and consent prompts: How Windows is to become more secure

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft has announced a major security pivot for Windows 11: a new Windows Baseline Security Mode (BSM) that will, by default, permit only properly signed applications, services, and drivers to execute — paired with a system-wide User Transparency and Consent (UTC) model that brings mobile-like permission prompts, centralized revocation, and auditable consent trails to the desktop.

Background / Overview​

For decades Windows balanced openness and compatibility with a layered set of optional hardening technologies — from Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC) and Device Guard to Hypervisor‑Protected Code Integrity (HVCI) and Smart App Control. Those protections were powerful but uneven: often optional, complex to deploy, or unavailable on many devices. Microsoft’s new approach consolidates those primitives into a single, auditable baseline and pairs it with a consent-first UX so that runtime integrity and user control are the default posture rather than opt-in features.
The core announcement, published on February 9, 2026, frames the changes as part of broader efforts to make Windows “secure by default” and to address modern threat trends such as signing and supply‑chain abuse, permissive driver loading, and the growing complexity introduced by agentic AI components. Microsoft describes BSM as an OS-level baseline and UTC as the user-facing consent model that will make app and agent behavior visible, auditable, and revocable.

---

What Windows Baseline Security Mode (BSM) actually does​

The simple definition​

• Default-deny runtime integrity: Only executables, background services, kernel drivers, and installers that meet Windows’ signature and attestation policy will run by default; unsigned or improperly signed components will be blocked unless an auditable exception exists.

How it fits with existing tech​

BSM is not an isolated new kernel feature; it consolidates and normalizes key elements from existing safeguards — notably WDAC, HVCI, Device Guard and Smart App Control — into a single baseline that Microsoft intends to enable by default across Windows 11 systems. That consolidation aims to remove the current fragmentation where strong protections exist but are not consistently applied.

Enforcement mechanics (technical)​

• Signature and attestation checks at runtime: When an executable, driver, or service loads, the OS will evaluate signatures and attestation claims against the baseline policy and block execution if checks fail.
• Kernel-level enforcement: Decisions occur at a low level — drawing on virtualization-based and kernel-protected integrity primitives so enforcement is robust against tampering.
• Auditable exceptions: Administrators (and, where appropriate, end users) can create exceptions; every exception will be recorded, visible, and revocable to support later review and forensics.

Developer-facing APIs and compatibility scaffolding​

Microsoft plans to provide APIs so installers, applications, and management tools can:

• Query whether BSM is active.
• Detect whether a specific binary is blocked and whether an exception exists.
• Provide guided, graceful remediation flows (e.g., suggest updated signed binaries or installation steps).

To reduce operational shock, Microsoft also emphasizes a simulation-first rollout: administrators will be able to run impact reports, simulate the baseline across fleets, identify likely incompatibilities, and stage approvals before turning on strict enforcement.

---

User Transparency and Consent (UTC): what desktop permissions look like​

Mobile-style consent for desktop software​

UTC brings standardized, human-readable permission prompts to Windows for sensitive actions such as file system access, camera and microphone use, installation of additional components, and other privileged behaviors. Prompts will identify the requesting app (or AI agent), name the requested resource, and offer clear choices like Allow once, Allow always, Deny, or Ask every time. Permissions will be revocable from a centralized settings UI and logged for auditing.

Time-boxed grants and revocation​

A critical design point is temporary permissions: Windows will support grants that expire when the app closes to reduce persistent permission creep. All decisions will be written to an auditable trail that IT can review, and users will have a single place to inspect and remove permissions. This is designed to reduce the silent changes that have long frustrated desktop users and defenders.

Treating AI agents as first‑class principals​

Because agentic or AI-driven components can act autonomously and at scale, Microsoft will treat agents as distinct principals with their own identities, provenance, and logged actions. That means agents will request permissions the same way apps do, and their activities will appear in the centralized audit logs. The intention here is to prevent opaque agent behavior from bypassing user expectations.

---

Why Microsoft is doing this now — threat context and scale​

Three converging trends make this shift consequential:

• Signing and supply-chain risk: Adversaries increasingly weaponize vendor builds and signing keys. A baseline that enforces provenance reduces opportunities for unsigned or tampered code to run undetected.
• Agentic and AI-driven automation: Autonomous agents can magnify mistakes or abuse when given broad privileges. UTC seeks to make those actions explicit and auditable.
• Platform ubiquity: Windows 11 runs at massive scale across consumer and enterprise devices; a default-deny posture, if implemented well, can substantially reduce class-wide risks. Microsoft explicitly notes the scale and stakes of changing default runtime policies.

---

Strengths: where BSM + UTC will likely deliver real gains​

• Substantially reduces silent persistence vectors. By blocking unsigned kernels, services, and installers by default, BSM removes many of the stealthy paths that malware and unwanted software use to persist and escalate.
• Enables auditable security decisions. Exceptions and consent are recorded and revocable, improving incident response and compliance visibility for enterprises.
• Brings the desktop permission model closer to modern expectations. Clear prompts and a centralized permission dashboard help users and admins know what software actually does. Time-boxed grants reduce long-term overprivilege.
• Consolidates expertise into one default posture. Rather than leaving powerful controls scattered and optional, Microsoft converts years of defensive primitives into a single baseline that the OS and ecosystem can align to. This reduces the complexity friction that stopped many organizations from enabling protections in the past.

---

Risks, downsides, and operational friction​

• Compatibility backlash and helpdesk load. A strict default-deny model will, at least initially, cause legitimate but legacy workflows to fail. Enterprises and support organizations should expect a transitional surge of compatibility tickets unless the rollout and tooling are excellent. Microsoft acknowledges this risk and emphasizes staged rollouts and simulation tools.
• Signed-software abuse remains a vector. Attackers adapt. Signing alone is not a panacea: stolen or abused signing keys, compromised build pipelines, or malicious but signed vendors can still produce malware. BSM reduces, but does not eliminate, supply-chain risks — especially without robust attestation, revocation, and reputation signals.
• Small developers and open-source projects may be disadvantaged. Signing can be a friction point for indie and open-source authors if signing costs, tooling complexity, or attestation requirements increase without commensurate support from Microsoft and the ecosystem.
• Potential for a false sense of security. Relying on default-deny runtime integrity might lull organizations into deprioritizing complementary protections (e.g., telemetry, least privilege design, vulnerability patching). BSM should be part of a defense-in-depth stack, not a replacement for it.
• Operational supply-chain pressure. As enterprises and OEMs scramble to sign and attest software, the signing infrastructure (CAs, hardware attestation, vendor processes) will face more demand. That creates new operational and governance challenges.

---

Practical guidance — how to prepare​

For IT administrators (recommended sequence)​

• Run the BSM simulation and impact report across a representative pilot group to map likely incompatibilities.
• Inventory line-of-business and legacy apps, prioritize signing or whitelisting for critical tools, and schedule remediation with vendors where necessary.
• Establish exception governance: define who can approve exceptions, how long they persist, and how they are audited. Make exception revocation part of periodic reviews.
• Communicate broadly with end users and support teams: expect more prompts and plan for a temporary helpdesk spike. Provide clear internal guidance for approving temporary exceptions.
• Use staged rollouts and telemetry to iteratively tighten enforcement, leveraging Microsoft’s APIs and tooling to automate as much inspection as possible.

For developers and ISVs​

• Prioritize code signing and automated signing in your CI/CD pipeline.
• Integrate BSM-detection and remediation flows: let your installer detect BSM, explain why an install was blocked, and guide users or admins through approved remediation.
• Consider time-boxed permission workflows and provide clear descriptions for any resource access prompts so users understand why a permission is requested.

For end users and power users​

• Expect more Ask me and Allow once prompts for apps that access files, camera, or try to install components. Use the centralized permissions UI to review and revoke access periodically.

---

Ecosystem implications and vendor coordination​

Microsoft is explicit that BSM and UTC are not an attempt to close the platform. Companies and developers will still be able to distribute software outside the Microsoft Store and will retain mechanisms for exceptions and enterprise pre-authorization. That openness is critical to avoid repeating past mistakes where security defaults inadvertently turned into vendor lock-in. Nevertheless, success will depend on wide ecosystem cooperation: signing authorities, ISVs, driver vendors, OEMs, and management tooling vendors must coordinate to make the transition smooth. Early reporting indicates that practitioners and third-party vendors have generally praised the direction while stressing the need for rich tooling and phased rollout.

---

What remains unspecified — open questions to watch​

• Exact enforcement milestones and timelines. Microsoft has announced staged rollouts and Insider previews but has not published a one-size-fits-all enforcement date for all devices. Administrators need clarity about when the baseline flips from simulation to strict enforcement on different device categories.
• Details of attestation and revocation. The long-term security benefit depends on how Microsoft implements attestation for signing (hardware-backed signals, certificate lifecycles, revocation workflows) and how quickly the platform can revoke trust in compromised artifacts. Those infrastructure details will determine whether signing remains a trustworthy signal or becomes a new vector for abuse.
• Support for open-source and community projects. If signing and attestation costs or procedural burdens grow, Microsoft will need to provide accessible tooling or exceptions for smaller projects, or risk fragmenting the developer ecosystem.
• Usability of consent prompts at scale. A surge in permission prompts can cause “prompt fatigue,” leading users to mechanically accept requests. Microsoft’s UX design and default choices will shape whether UTC provides meaningful control or becomes background noise. Time-boxed grants and clear explanations will be essential.

---

Final analysis: a strategic inflection point — if Microsoft executes​

Microsoft’s announcement is a decisive attempt to move Windows from permissive-by-default to secure-by-default with user control. If the company executes the plan with robust tooling — accurate impact simulation, accessible signing/attestation paths, clear conflict-resolution guidance, and a polished consent UX — the result could be a measurable reduction in the kinds of silent persistence and data-exfiltration attacks that have plagued Windows endpoints for years. The consolidation of signature and integrity checks with auditable exceptions and mobile-style consent addresses several real blind spots at once.
But execution matters. Poor UX, clumsy exception flows, inadequate signing support for small developers, or weak attestation/revocation mechanics could turn the promise into friction: more helpdesk tickets, frustrated users, and creative attacker adaptation. Microsoft knows this and has signaled a phased rollout designed to give developers and IT teams time to adapt; the next months of Insider previews and enterprise pilots will be the critical proving ground.
For enterprises and defenders, the right posture is clear: start testing now, inventory and sign critical software, build exception governance, and train support teams for the expected transitional load. For developers, bake signing and BSM-awareness into build pipelines. For users, expect clearer prompts and a centralized way to control what apps and agents can do.
If the ecosystem rises to the challenge, Windows 11’s Baseline Security Mode and User Transparency and Consent could mark one of the most consequential security shifts for the desktop in years — a move that both limits classic Windows attack vectors and modernizes consent for a world of agentic software. The outcome will depend on Microsoft’s technical rigor, partner cooperation, and above all, the quality of the tools and UX that turn an ambitious security posture into practical, manageable security for billions of Windows devices.

---

Source: FilmoGaz Windows 11 Aims for Enhanced Security with Properly Signed Apps and Drivers