On 6/14/10 4:28 PM, Tracy Pearson wrote: >> From what I recall, If you self-sign the EXE, the warning changes to "the > certificate cannot be verified". Which could mean the same thing as not > having it signed.
Yep. > COMODO is who we used. Find the one that is Code signing. > <http://www.comodo.com/business-security/code-signing-certificates/code-sign > ing.php> Ok, $180 per year. Cheaper than others, but still extortion. I guess its the price of doing business. I don't have to choose to support Windows. > Is it worth the hassle? I'll have to specifically ask my techs again. I do > know if the file does not download completely the signature is not intact, > and the user is specifically told that something may be wrong. I guess if it results in one fewer warning dialog for my users, it is probably worth it. > Do you use an automation tool like Visual Build Pro to put your windows > package together? It has a signing action in it that I use. No, I script InnoSetup. > I know there are a couple of products you can purchase for less than $50 to > allow you to attach a signature to the file. Ok, so I can probably run one of those instead of the Microsoft-provided one. Cool. > Many times when I'm needed a part of the huge package and do not want it on > my box, I use a VM. > So... Install the Windows OS SDK into a test virtual machine, grab the files > you need and clean up the VM. Yep, I do this too sometimes. Thanks Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
