Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- From: "mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:26:50 GMT
> > You can buy an authenticode digital signature and sign
> > your downloads, like the spyware companies do. :)
>
> Is that enough ? Don't you need MS certification wish cost
> arm and a leg ?
> Have you or anybody try it ?
No, you don't need MS certification. The certificate
requirement is not about software quality. It's about
potentially risky downloads being identifiable. I'm fairly
certain that a digital certificate is adequate to stop
the warnings, but I don't know how much is involved.
That is, I don't know how a company demonstrates that
they're sufficiently official to have a certificate. I imagine
that you probably have to at least be incorporated.
I wouldn't do it, in any case. It was a bold move on the
part of Microsoft to decide that they'd put their browser
in charge of what's "safe" and what's not online. Authenticode
started out as a way to certify ActiveX controls. Microsoft's
move to extend that to all downloads was really quite a
radical step. Among other things, it aims to filter out the small
players and corporatize the Internet. Their authenticode
scheme goes a long way toward reshaping the Web as
a commercial venue. It redefines *all* downloads from
private or "mom and pop" sources as being suspect.
So to buy a certificate is to play into Microsoft's
strategy. It would actively support the notion that only
corporate entities - with commercial motives - should be
operating online.
>> is to include a small explanation on my download page.
> You can't when you are linked from a shareware site.
Yes, that's a good point. There's nothing that can be
done about that. On the bright side, the people who
don't know what a zip is also usually don't pay much
attention to security warnings. :)
> Firefox is going to fall also, they are following the
> foot steps of Netscape, where you have to fetch for
> your Plug Ins or Add Ins, and they link you to them.
> While most Add Ins have huge bugs, one ruined my IE Favorites,
> lucky had a backup.
It does seem that most of the Firefox plugins
are half-baked and/or superfluous....and I'm not
wild about the default setting to check for updates....
I don't like that assumption that software can go
online without asking. (Much less the assumption
that it's OK for a software program to be some
kind of permanent beta on a drip feed of updates.!)
But mozilla.org doesn't have any motive to be
exploitive, while Microsoft, Apple and AOL/Netscape do.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- From: Kees
- Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- From: mayayana
- Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- From: TedF
- Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- From: mayayana
- Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- From: TedF
- "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- Prev by Date: Re: Application monitoring/key logging
- Next by Date: Re: Drop-down FONT list using screen.fonts W/O @FONTS
- Previous by thread: Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- Next by thread: Re: "The Publisher could not be verified. etc."
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
