I would like to be able to sign my code, mainly just so windows defender won't complain about it on other computers but it needs to be signed nonetheless.
Convienently, visual studio provides an easy way to do that! Unless you're me...
https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ym2LM.png
The sign the click one manifests thing is unavaliable, and the sign the assembly, well, when I create a password key, well, lets just say it makes major uncircumventable roadblocks.
So my question is -
How can I sign my windows forms app, and why is what I would assume to be the tradional method greyed out?d
As far as I know/gotten-to signing software requires a x.509 certificate. I've never bought one or an SSL certificate for serving HTTPS, but I'm assuming they are similar, so maybe you can buy them at the same place...?
I just posted the Microsoft link Add an exclusion to Windows Security, it's the best I can do right now.
Related
I was tasked to set up an open-source icap-server to scan files that are uploaded in one of our web applications.
The files base64-encoded withing the upload method and this seems to lead to the fortigate not being able to scan it properly.
Now I managed to set up an icap-server using "c-icap" and tested it with "clamav". So far it seems to work, at least EICAR files are detected.
Now the problem is, that my boss is basically a "Windows-only" person who says that any open-source AV can´t be trusted enough.
He wants me to try to have the requests/uploads sent to the c-icap server, but scanned with Windows Defender. ß Is there any - useful - way to accomplish this? Also, since I am super new to ICAP - are there any restrictions regarding which icap-server can be used?Like, is there any way to force requests to be handled with a metadefender-icap only, and not any other icap server?
Sorry if these questions are a bit unspecific and basic, but just started with ICAP yesterday!
Thank you!
Check out this link: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/metadefender-icap-with-windows-defender-antivirus-world-class/ba-p/800234 to see what Microsoft offers regarding Defender+ICAP.
I have used commercial ICAP solutions in the past (like Bluecoat) that allow plugging in multiple commercial virus engines (Kaspersky, Sophos, ...).
These are appliances, and you don't need to tell your boss their internals are probably some sort of Linux ;-)
You can probably also set up a commercial antivirus solution on your Linux system and use that.
Looking at this link: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/microsoft-defender-atp/microsoft-defender-atp-linux it may even be possible to run Microsoft's Defender on Linux. I haven't tried it myself though.
Unlike your boss, Microsoft realizes software shouldn't be made to just run on Windows anymore (even MS-SQL Server now runs on Linux).
This question already has answers here:
How can I stop my installer from triggering Windows 10's "This app has been blocked for your protection" error?
(2 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I am new to windows development. I packed my project into a msi setup to install on other systems but when I open the msi in any system it shows a warning as attached . How can I remove this warning?
Note: Be sure to check if your organization already has an EV-level certificate? Just a few emails or phone calls might be wise before trying to research the purchase process?
Trust & Reputation: What you really need is an EV code-signing certificate. Microsoft's SmartScreen feature
in Windows (which is what you see with that blue prompt) is a
reputation-based system where unknown binaries are flagged as unsafe until they are validated safe by users in actual use.
Virustotal.com: An EV code-signing certificate "buys trust outright" - interesting concept - and should allow your users to not see such a prompt even for brand new binaries. Make sure to check all your binaries using virustotal.com though, as many malware-scanner detections can trigger a resurged smartscreen warning for any binary - which is what it is for (signed malware is still malware).
False Positives: False positives for malware is a huge problem since you have to deal with it and solve it, and you can't just tell your users to rebuild their PC and try again.
Moral: The moral of the story is to use Virustotal.com to test for both malware and false positives in your binaries and files for distribution, and to use an EV-level certificate for serious software distribution to get trust for your binaries outright (without delay). An EV-level certificate is not a silver bullet. Problems can still be seen. Trust can be lost too, not just gained (trust... hard to earn, easy to lose).
Tip: A properly signed MSI will also show up with the correct name in the UAC prompt: Installshield Custom Dialogue Installer (see screen shot and then the answer a bit down the page).
The Far Side Perspective: "Be sure that your setup is malware free or an applied digital certificate is proof positive that you delivered the malware" (until that is hackable too) :-)
We do our best.
Link:
How to protect MSI against modification (on malware and false positives - recommended)
How to add publisher in Installshield 2018
How to pass the Windows Defender SmartScreen Protection?
Trying to get a ClickOnce application to work correctly, but I keep encountering the "Trust Not Granted" exceptions, and I'm not yet seeing why this is happening.
The EXE is signed with a code signing certificate from VeriSign, both by setting the "Sign the ClickOnce manifests" option in the Signing tab, as well as implementing the pre-publish approach metioned here: http://robindotnet.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/windows-8-and-clickonce-the-definitive-answer-2/ . I have verified that the certificate is installed on the client machine correctly. I have verified that my EXE is signed after the build as well.
I have taken the same approach with setting explicit trusts as this StackOverflow answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/16816341/97879
I am presently deploying to a network share, and that is the expected path for updates until we're prepared to take this application to production.
My application can see that there is an update available, but then fails when trying to update. This happens the same way on both Windows 7 and 8 machines.
What am I missing?
I have two C binaries which tries to open network connection for communication.
This is for external communication. When i run that for the first time, OS X' firewall pops up the message as given in title. How can I get rid of this?
I suspect this is related to code-signing? How to do code-sign this binary?
Basically I have to build this binary in one Mac machine, and distribute outside app store.
How can I get rid of the firewall pop up if the OS X firewall is enabled in the machine?
You can resolve this by signing the offending application binary yourself.
Disclaimer: Signing an application yourself will make an application appear more
secure to the operating system, when in reality it isn’t. Only sign applications
that you are 100% sure are not spyware or otherwise malicious. If you have any
doubts, just uninstall/reinstall.
Part 1: Create a Signing Identity
The solution I’m going for – signing the app myself – requires that I create a Signing Identity, also known as Signing Certificate. This is very easy to do:
Open Applications > Utilities > Keychain Access.
From the Keychain Access menu, choose Certificate Assistant > Create a Certificate.
Fill in a name for the certificate. This name appears in the Keychain Access utility as the name of the certificate. This is also the name you will use when referencing this certificate. Personally, I used the name, “My Signing Identity.”
Choose Code Signing from the Certificate Type menu.
Choose Self Signed Root from the Type popup menu.
Check the Let me override defaults checkbox.
Click Continue.
Specify a serial number for the certificate. Any number will do as long as you have no other certificate with the same name and serial number.
Click Continue.
Fill in the information for the certificate. You can use real or fake data, I used real data personally.
Click Continue.
Accept the defaults for the rest of the dialogs.
Once completed, you will see your certificate in Keychain Access. Verify the name you picked, and you’re done with this step. Well done!
Step 2: (Re-)Sign your application
Now you have to sign your application. To do this, open up Terminal again and use the following command:
codesign -s "My Signing Identity" -f /path/to/your/binary/app
A dialog will appear, click "Allow".
Now start your application again. You will get the accept incoming connections dialog one last time. Click "Allow".
From now on you should no longer get the warnings anymore! Now it is possible to enjoy the security of your firewall being active without the inconvenience of having to click "allow" constantly.
Credit: The original source which served as a starting place for this updated and annotated solution guide was http://silvanolte.com/blog/2011/01/18/do-you-want-the-application-to-accept-incoming-network-connections/
In my case this alert appeared when i run Python project from PyCharm after updating MacOS to 10.15 Cataline. I fixed it with
codesign -vvv /Applications/PyCharm.app/
I was trying to apply this solution to fix python as used by Arduino OTA, I found another solution describing self-signing the app that stated $(which python) as the file path to sign, but in my case that resolved to /usr/bin/python. Self-signing this not only required I drop to Rootless mode to allow writing to /usr/bin, but when I went back and tested it, python was STILL asking for permission to allow incoming connections!
The correct python file to self-sign is in fact (in my case at least) /System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/Resources/Python.app
Once I self-signed this correct file path, the Arduino OTA process no longer required me clicking allow incoming connections - Hoorah!
Hope that helps someone.
I've seen several questions that are the opposite of this; "How do I disable virtualization?" That is not my question. I want to force an application to run with virtualization enabled.
I have an application that ran just fine under Windows XP, but, because it writes its configuration to its working directory (a subfolder of "C:\Program Files (x86)"), it does not work completely under Windows 7. If I use task manager to turn on UAC Virtualization, it saves its config just fine, but of course it then can't load that config.
I do not want to set it to run as administrator, as it does not need those privileges. I want to set it to run with UAC Virtualization enabled.
I found a suggestion that I put some magic in the registry at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags. For completeness I also put it in Wow6432Node, but neither had any effect.
File system is virtualized in certain scenarios, so is your question how to still turn it on when your application does not qualify? It is unlikely possible, MSDN:
Virtualization is not in option in the following scenarios:
Virtualization does not apply to applications that are elevated and run with a full administrative access token.
Virtualization supports only 32-bit applications. Non-elevated 64-bit applications simply receive an access denied message when they
attempt to acquire a handle (a unique identifier) to a Windows object.
Native Windows 64-bit applications are required to be compatible with
UAC and to write data into the correct locations.
Virtualization is disabled for an application if the application includes an application manifest with a requested execution level
attribute.
this may come way too late now, but I am the author of the suggestion you found to activate UAC virtualization, and there was a mistake in my post. The registry keys to modify are the following:
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers\
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers\
(notice the "Layers" appended)
so a full example would be:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers]
"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Some Company\\someprogram.exe"="RUNASINVOKER"
note that multiple parameters must be separated with space character.
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers]
"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Some Company\\someprogram.exe"="WINXPSP3 RUNASINVOKER"
--
I'm sincerely sorry that you lost a fair amount of time because of my mistake.
And by the way, let me express my disagreement with Ian Boyd's post. There are places where write privileges should not be granted to everyone, such as this one, since it breaks the base security rule of "System-wide writes should be authorised to privileged principals only". Program Files is a system-wide place, not a per-user one.
All rules have exceptions of course, but in the present case, one could imagine a maliciously crafted configuration file making the program exec an arbitrary command as the user running it. On a lighter side, one could imagine a "mistake delete" by another user, which would make the app fail. Back on the heavier side, application executables in Program Files are often run by the admin, sooner or later. Even if you don't want to, uninstalling programs very often run uninstall executables that are in Program Files. Maybe the uninstall procedure will use that config file which could have consequences if it's maliciously crafted.
Of course you may say, this sounds paranoid somehow, agreed. I did modify some NTFS ACLs in Program Files at the times of Win XP and was able to sleep after that, but why take the slightest risk when the tools are available ?
I found one not very well cited condition where UAC Virtualization does NOT work: when the file in Program Files is maked as read-only.
That is, suppose the file C:\Program Files\<whatever>\config.ini is marked as read-only. When the application try to change it, UAC Virtualization will return an access denied error instead of reparsing it to %LOCALAPPDATA%\VirtualStore\<whatever>\config.ini.
Although I did not found this documented, this behavior is probably done by design, since it makes some sense.
The solution is simple: assure that all files that are supposed to be modified by the application are not read-only (or just unflag all files, since the user will not be able to change them anyway).
You have an application, and you want users to be able to modify registry keys or files in locations that by default only Administrators can modify.
If you were running Windows 2000, or Windows XP, or Windows Vista, or Windows 7, or Windows 8, the solution is the same:
grant appropriate permissions to those locations
For example, if your program needs to modify files in:
C:\Program Files\Blizzard\World of Warcraft
Then the correct action is to change permissions on the World of Warcraft folder. This is, in fact, a shim that Microsoft applied to World of Warcraft. (On next run it granted Everyone Full Control to the folder - how else can WoW update itself no matter what user is logged in.)
If you want users to be able to modify files in a location: you have to grant them permission. If you were a standard user trying to run WoW on Windows XP you will get the same problem - and need to apply the same solution.
Your application is writing its configuration to:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Hyperion Pro\preferences.ini
then you, in fact do want to grant Users Full Control to that file:
So your:
application is not set to run as an Administrator
users cannot modify the executable
users can modify Configuration.ini
Granting permissions is not a bad thing; it's how you administer your server.
There are two solutions:
Install to C:\ProgramData\Contoso\Preferences.ini and ACL it at install time
Install to C:\Program Files\Contoso\Preferences.ini and ACL it at install time
And if you look at the guidance of the AppCompat guy at Microsoft:
Where Should I Write Program Data Instead of Program Files?
A common application code update is this: “my application used to write files to program files. It felt like as good a place to put it as any other. It had my application’s name on it already, and because my users were admins, it worked fine. But now I see that this may not be as great a place to stick things as I once thought, because with UAC even Administrators run with standard user-like privileges most of the time. So, where should I put my files instead?”
FOLDERID_ProgramData
The user would never want to browse here in Explorer, and settings changed here should affect every user on the machine. The default location is %systemdrive%ProgramData, which is a hidden folder, on an installation of Windows Vista. You’ll want to create your directory and set the ACLs you need at install time.
So you have two solutions:
create your file at install time, and ACL it so that all users can modify it at runtime
create your file at install time, and ACL it so that all users can modify it at runtime
The only difference is semantic. The Program Files folder is mean for program files. You don't want to store data here.
And it's not because Diego Queiroz has any insight about security.
It's because it's where just the programs go.
Sometimes machines are imaged with the same Program Files over and over. You don't want per-machine data in your image. That data belongs in ProgramData.
And it's not a security issue.
Some people have to learn where the security boundary is.
there are quite some good points in those other answers.
actually i have upvoted all of those.
so let's all combine them together and add some more aspect ...
the OP mentions some "legacy application from the old days".
so we can assume it is x86 (32bit) and also does not include any manifest (and in particular does not specify any "requestedExecutionLevel").
--
Roman R. has good points in his answer regarding x64 and manifest file:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8853363/1468842
but all those conditions don't seem to apply in this case.
NovHak outlines some AppCompatFlags with RUNASIVOKER in his answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/25903006/1468842
Diego Queiroz adds intersting aspect regarding the read-only flag in his answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/42934048/1468842
Ian Boyd states that probably you don't even should go for that "virtualization", but instead set according ACL on those files of interest (such as "config.ini"):
https://stackoverflow.com/a/12940213/1468842
and here comes the addtional / new aspect:
one can set a policy to disable all virtualization - system-wide:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System]
"EnableVirtualization"=dword:00000000
actually i'm enforcing this policy on each and every system that i own.
because otherwise it will lead to confusing behaviour on multi-user environments.
where UserA applies some changes and everything goes fine.
but then UnserB does not get the changes done by UserA.
in case some old crappy software fails then it should "fail"!
and not claim that everything went "fine".
IMHO this "Virtualization" thing was the worst design decision by microsoft, ever.
so maybe the system has this policy enabled and that's why virtualization doesn't work for you?
--
so probably the ultimate checklist would be:
is the application x86 or x64?
does the exe have a manifest (including the requestedExecutionLevel)?
have you checked the read-only attribute (e.g. of those INI files)?
is there a policy to force the EnableVirtualization to 0?
have you tried the AppCompatFlags with RUNASIVOKER?
or simply go for ACL instead of virtualization
--
in the end we are discussing how to get on old legacy application to run.
by using whatever workarounds and hacks we can think of.
this should probably better discussed on either superuser or serverfault.
at stackoverflow (targeted for programmers) we all know: it's about time to get all of our own programs compatible with UAC concept and how to implement things the "right" way - the "microsoft" way :)