WRFan
Gold Member | Редактировать | Профиль | Сообщение | Цитировать | Сообщить модератору
Цитата:
нет нет, это всё не то, там никаких решений проблемы нет
Цитата:| Т.е. дело даже не в файле htageditorsetup.exe |
дело не столько в этом файле, сколько в факте, что он дигитально не подписан, у меня выдаётся security warning со всеми инсталляторами (именно только инсталляторами, а не всеми ехешниками), если они дигитально не подписаны.
Цитата:| Чтобы разобраться, нужна чистая система. Параллельно поставил? Попробовал? Скажем, начать со сравнения куста System. |
как можно сравнивать две совершенно разные системы? у меня winxp уже стоит 3 года, там 170.000 разделов, на новой winxp 40.000 разделов, пока я сравню каждый раздел друг с другом, я постарею. и откуда мне знать, что вообще все эти разделы значат? я хорошо разбираюсь с реестром, но я не знаю значения каждого раздела
я кстати подумал, может это вообще не DEP? может вот тут проблема?:
http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBJ/tip4500/rh4519.htm
Software Restriction Policies , я с настройками поигрался, но ничего не помогает (ребут конечно сделал после изменений)
Добавлено
KLASS, кстати:
Цитата:
After installing SP2, users who download and install any Tech-Pro applications – or those of thousands of other developers – will see a security warning that says: “The publisher could not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?” The warning then explains: “This file does not have a digital signature that verifies its publisher. You should only run software from publishers you trust.” It’s quite likely that many potential customers, especially those who have had a bad experience with malware, will be put off trying the software right from the start.
|
Цитата:
In XP-SP2 the default behavior of the operating system (this includes IE) is to prompt you about running any executable content that doesn't have a digital signature.
What does this mean? It protects you. Sure, 99% of code won't have that signature (believe it or not that actually helps things), but that answers the following quote: "...Except in Windows files are automatically executable just because of the extension."
That is no longer true. If the content is executable, downloaded and already on your system (just sitting on your desktop for example), and there is no digital signature authenticating the distributor (and package envelope, much like PGP for email), then you get prompted "The publisher could not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" and the default is CANCEL. It even informs you with a RED WARNING: "This file does not have a valid digital signature that verifies its publisher. You should only run software from publishers you trust. (and a link to How can I decide what software to run?"
Even more, when actively downloading executable content (not already on your system), the following is displayed "Do you want to run or save this file?" with the default being CANCEL and a YELLOW WARNING stating "This type of file can harm your computer. If the file information above looks suspicious, or you do not fully trust the source, do not run or save this software. (and a link to How can I decide what software to run?"
Additionally there is a security bit inside the properties of the object (above and beyond any security tab). This shows up when the digital signature is not present. In many ways it creates the speed bump that you're talking about Halcyon. All default, all already present and well tested in XP-SP2.
THAT is a paradigm that is easy for a user to understand. It's well explained. If you don't know how to read past the first few grades in school, you shouldn't have any reason to blame the operating system.
The security bit can be removed through an installer package, so that a program once installed wouldn't need a digital signature for every executable in their suite. But guess what, you would need one for the installer program wouldn't you? I'm just trying to answer an issue like for example Office being installed (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc). The installer package requires the signature. It's the only bit you actually "run". If you allow it, the system assumes you allow any derivatives of it. And the warning is quite clear in that respect.
|
это значит, что эта security warning должна быть у всех! как так может быть, что у тебя нет, а у меня есть? извини за вопрос, но ты поставил у себя sp2 или нет? |
Всего записей: 5275 | Зарегистр. 25-11-2002 | Отправлено: 04:19 16-08-2004 | Исправлено: WRFan, 06:13 16-08-2004 |
|
Ты чего сравнивать то собрался о "хорошо разбирающийся в реестре".... записи об установленном тобою софте за три года никого не волнуют, потому туда и незачем лезть. 
