I have published a basic unsigned windows form application using ClickOnce on Visual Studio. I took the .exe file and .exe.config file and moved it to a folder on my desktop. I signed the .exe file with a legitimate digiCert signing tool, and I created the application manifest and deployment manifest using MageUI and signed it with the same signing tool. I moved all the files to the FTP server that I want the users to download from. When I enter the URL in the browser everything works fine, but it prompts me to Install, and it says that the Publisher is Unknown. After I click install, the app runs as it should.
Also, I have already added my certificate to the Trusted Publisher store, and verified that the issuer of my certificate is in the Intermediate Certification Authority store, and their issuer is in the Root Certification Authority Store.
I have also opened the deployment and application manifest using notepad, and can see my signature on them, and I can see that my .exe file is signed by right clicking on it and selecting properties, then the signature tab.
I have followed the Steps outlined in this site: https://robindotnet.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/windows-8-and-clickonce-the-definitive-answer-2/
I used the : "#1: Signing the application executable post-publish." steps.
So my main question is why is it saying that the publisher is Unknown when I download and run the .application file?
Note: that the SmartScreen filter is not picking up my app as being unsafe
I have (sadly) the same problem.
Microsoft doesn't accept anymore the SHA-1 certificate since 1. january 2016:
Windows Enforcement of Autheticode:
Code Signing Certificates: Windows will no longer trust files with the Mark of the Web attribute that are signed with a SHA-1 code signing certificate and are timestamped after 1/1/2016. With the exception of issuing certificates to developers who intend to develop only applications for Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, CAs may not issue new SHA-1 code signing certificates after January 1, 2016.
I tried to sign with a SHA256 hash and with a SHA2 timestamp certificate but this is not enough. What I can't understand is why an unsigned exe is threated as more secure as a signed SHA1 exe in smartscreen!
The other answer tells you what's going on, and here's what's working for me. I pivoted another's work for my CI pipeline, but the script can be used in any capacity:
https://github.com/erikest/SignClickOnce
Related
I am developing a clickonce C sharp project in Visual Studio.
On my main computer, I have generated a self-signed certificate for the clickonce manifest.
This works fine, I can compile, deploy and run.
I also sync this solution to my github account, and regularly pull updates down to a backup computer.
The backup computer is not able to simply compile this solution, as it gives errors in regards to self-signed keys.
I could generate a new one on the backup computer, but then when I deploy to same testbed, it causes issues because the certificate is from a different location.
I want to quickly be able to deploy from the backup computer in the event that there is an issue with the main.
How can I share the main computer's generated certificate with my backup environment without issue?
My apologies if this is straightforward or I am missing something obvious.
Run certmgr.msc (user) or certlm.msc (computer) and look in My Certificates for the certificate. Right click it an check if you can export it with the private key resulting in am PFX file (PKCS#12).
If this is not possible generate a new one with the -ExportPolicy Exportable option.
I came across very little literature to use code signing certificates without a private key being exported. Hence, requesting some basic info regarding including the code signing certificate in the installshield 2013 to sign our setup.exe file.
So it goes like this...
We had a certificate from Symantec and/or Verisign that expired a few days ago. So we got a new certificate from them which is a SHA-256 cert. However, they won't release the private key. Hence we cannot generate a .pfx file which used to include in our installshield. They say that, here on who ever wants to do the code signing using installshield needs the dongle attached to the computer to get the private key verification done. I don't quite understand what they mean. However, it is clear that they want us to connect with the dongle for private key verification. So if I do not have the pfx file, how can I achieve code signing using installshield 2013? I also read on the Web that the support for SHA-256 certs was not available in 2013 and that one would have to migrate to 2015 or above to do something of that sort. So we have hit a roadblock with this thing and our automated build process is failing.
Hence, request you to provide me any pointers as to how can we get this thing done.
Thanks and Regards,
Bhushan.
InstallShield 2015 or so added support for signing using certificates from certificate stores. Before that, some people have intercepted the call to signtool, implementing their own calls to either the real signtool or the APIs it calls. This should give you the freedom to use your dongle-based private key, or anything else you need.
(On the downside, InstallShield 2015's and later implementation doesn't let you do this interception trick.)
Ok...So it goes like this...We have a rights issue. As per Symantec, only the person who is the owner of the certificate, can generate a private key on his machine with his admin privileges and that too using IE 11 browser. Now the issue is, the certificate request goes to a helpdesk portal, pending an approval and then forwarded to symantec after the necessary approval. Looks like the approver has to act as the owner, even though the requesting team has paid for the certificate. That is weird but true. So the person who receives all the certificates first hand has to download the certificate, export the certificate along with the private key into the .pfx file and then send us the .pfx! Meanwhile, is there any possibility that I run the export certificate wizard from the browser and the export .pfx option is disabled just because the user launched the browser with insufficient privileges? How may I confirm that this is a rights issue? Thanks.
Further to these, I simply have a very general question about signing. The thing is, even though I know what code signing is and some of the applications might absolutely need it, I do not see a substantial need for the windows based desktop applications. I may be wrong on this. However, all the literature I see points to the fact that the authority that is publishing should be trusted. Now we as a team are responsible for a suite of desktop applications that are being packaged using installshield and code signed by Symantec SHA 256 class certificates. We only sign the set.exe file and as a result it shows a typical trust prompt to the user who installs our software. Our users are a rather closely knit group of clients and are easily approachable. Also, I do not see a risk of our network being intercepted and hacked to tamper the content of setup. In such a situation, is having a certificate justified?
I have a few questions with respect to SignTool as well. I understand that the signing for our certificate is currently failing because we have not yet procured the private key for it. However, the timestamp verification is also failing for a self signed certificate that I have generated for testing purposes. So I need to understand what exactly is a timestamp doing in installshield when Signtool is invoked? Installshield is a good product; however the supporting documentation provided by Flexera is rather pathetic. Thanks.
VSTO ClickOnce wants to add a certificate to the published client deployable. Is there anything wrong with using a test certificate for this even in a Live environment - note we are on an Intranet (and hence trust isn't really an issue).
If we use a Test cert. in Live will it ever expire - if so, can we make it not expire
For intranet you can create your own code signing certificate by setting up microsoft certificate server or use makecert.
With this approach you can create a certificate with 10-20 year of validity and use certmgr to register. This new certificate can be used in visual studio to sign your project.
On certain sites the certificate chain can not be built up to the trusted root certificate because this trusted root cert is not known to Windows. But if we visit such site using IE or Chrome, Windows automatically downloads (verified) the trusted root somewhere and silently installs it to Trusted Certificate Authorities storage. After this we can build the certificate chain up to the newly installed root. If we manually remove newly downloaded trusted root certificate from Windows storage, the chain can't be built again.
I know about Authority Information Access extension. The problem is that the topmost available certificate in the chain (the child of missing trusted root) does NOT have such extension included. And even if it had, Windows would not automatically trust the downloaded certificate.
So there must be some other source of knowledge about trusted roots. The question is - how can we use that source ourselves. The topmost available certificate is available here if anyone is interested in inspecting it.
This link http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931125 explains how Windows updates root certificates silently in Vista and 7.
I also stumbled on this multiple times. It can be reproduced easily using windows sandbox. If you use curl or similar certificates can not be verified. Only if you call WinHttpOpen the root certificate (if trusted) will be added to the root certificate store.
See this post
Certificates contain an extension called "Authority Information Access" which contains the details of the issuing CA. An example of the certificate used for "https://gooogle.com" is shown below. The browser reads this value, downloads the certificate from the URL provided and repeats the process up the certificate chain.
I work for a company that sells USB devices and provides drivers for them.
In Windows 7, you could install and use unsigned INF driver files for USB devices as long as they didn't add any code to the kernel. Our company uses generic drivers provided by Microsoft (usbser.sys and winusb.sys), so we never needed to sign our driver packages.
Based on a report from one of our customers and from another Stack Overflow question What changed in the driver signature requirements for Windows 8? and the Arduino forum, it sounds like the Windows 8 Consumer Preview has stricter signing requirements that require all third-party INF files to get signed. The error message people are getting when trying to install drivers that worked on Windows 7 is:
The third-party INF does not contain digital signature information.
What is the official word from Microsoft that confirms that the signatures will still be required in the final version of Windows 8? A sentence or two from MSDN.com would be sufficient, but I can't find anything.
I am considering buying a signing certificate, but before I pay $200 I want to be sure I will actually need it in the long term. It's possible that the new signing requirement is just in the consumer preview and not in the real version?
To answer my own question: Yes, the final version of Windows 8 does require all INF files to be signed, but you do not need to submit your drivers to the WHQL. I wrote about this requirement and much more in my article Practical Windows Code and Driver Signing.
Not only does it require signing of INF files, it also requires them to be signed by the WHQL certificate, not the same one that you use to embedded-sign .sys files and the like. Using my Code Signing certificate on the INF file didn't work at all. (Same problems as if left unsigned.)
EDIT:
This is what Microsoft wants you to think. They said that certain classes of drivers HAVE to be WHQL signed, otherwise they won't work, and that Authenticode signing works only for those who don't have a WHQL process.
It turns out you CAN Authenticode sign driver packages, except you have to take care and sign them like you would kernel code now, which means getting the correct cross certificate for your CA (from Cross-Certificates for Kernel Mode Code Signing, there are tons of them now, including StartCom, which I have (class 2, US$60 for two years, but they can't be timestamped). Supply this cross certificate (not the same as your CA's self-signed certificate, or their intermediary certificate. It's only available on that MSDN page) to SignTool via the /ac switch.
Then use SignTool verify with the /kp switch to see if you cross signed them properly. SignTool verification with without any switches REQUIRES that the .cat files are WHQL signed, while the /pa switch, which seemed to be OK before, is now too lax, and only applies to non-driver signing (like EXE files, ClickOnce, etc.).
If you don't want to acquire your own kernel-level signing certificate (which is easier now than before, frankly, before it was limited to VeriSign's super expensive, and GlobalSign US$200-a-year ones, I guess Microsoft saw that not many people wrote kernel-level exploits for x64 systems), you can make a self-signed root CA, have your driver installer install it into the LocalMachine's "Trusted Root Certification Authority" store (see certmgr.exe), and then install the .cat file which was signed by that. Of course, since this isn't a kernel-level code certificate, you MUST use only .sys files which already have an embedded kernel-level code certificate from someone else (which means, you can only modify .inf files in driver packages). Apparently, there's some loophole that allows self-signed certificates to sign .cat files (if you made your own CA, then signed a certificate with it, then signed your .cat files with that, it won't work like this).
For a suite that does this for every driver INF package it makes, see libwdi, and how their self-signed certificates on cat files allow installation on Windows 8.
EDIT2:
Removed CERTUM "open source" developer certificate mention, as it's not cross-certified by Microsoft (The one you get isn't the Certum TRUSTED NETWORK one, that Microsoft cross-certified).