Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=80935 --- shadow/80935 2007-02-26 11:07:51.000000000 -0500 +++ shadow/80935.tmp.30538 2007-02-27 12:41:23.000000000 -0500 @@ -42,6 +42,35 @@ The product name is not the same under XP (first is cureit.exe, then cureit2.exe). Did you use the same command line options for both ? Also please supply the command-line arguments that were used to sign the binaries. Thanks + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:41 ------- +Command line under Linux: + +signcode -v key.pvk -spc cert.spc -t +http://timestamp.verisign.com/scripts/timstamp.dll -n 'Free Dr.Web +anti-virus scanner' -cn 'Doctor Web Ltd.' cureit.exe + +Command line under Windows: + +"c:\program files\Macrovision\IS 12 StandaloneBuild\signcode.exe" -cn +"Doctor Web Ltd." -n "Free Dr.Web anti-virus scanner" -t +"http://timestamp.verisign.com/scripts/timstamp.dll"; +cureit.exe + + +In windows case, certificated resides inside IE's registry, for Linux +it is exported, key without password protection is created, cer+spc +are extracted from canonic pfx. + + +-n description in 1st zip are different; yes but it is not affeceting +result. I tried with same command-line keys. If chktrust check +signature only, then it should detect no difference, the problem is +only appeares on Vista in second run confirmation (uac) screen. On +first screen publisher correctly displayed for both files. + +May be I should try signcode under windows with pvk+spc I use on +linux... I'll try it and post results. _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
