On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:38:30AM +0200, Christ van Willegen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Trevor Daniels
> wrote:
> > They vary, but Firefox has a recognised certificate
> > which identifies the publisher as Mozilla Corporation.
> > The certificate was issued by Thawte Code Signing
2009/4/1 Christ van Willegen :
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Trevor Daniels
> wrote:
>> They vary, but Firefox has a recognised certificate
>> which identifies the publisher as Mozilla Corporation.
>> The certificate was issued by Thawte Code Signing CA.
>
> ...and those certificates are $5
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> They vary, but Firefox has a recognised certificate
> which identifies the publisher as Mozilla Corporation.
> The certificate was issued by Thawte Code Signing CA.
...and those certificates are $599. Ouch.
Christ van Willegen
--
09 F9 1
2009/3/31 Trevor Daniels :
> (...)
> You need a X.509 version 3 code-signing certificate to sign an application.
> See
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc962053.aspx
>
> For a full description of the process see
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb172338.aspx
What's the status
Francisco Vila wrote Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:37 PM
2009/3/31 Trevor Daniels :
(...)
You need a X.509 version 3 code-signing certificate to sign an
application.
See
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc962053.aspx
For a full description of the process see
http://msdn.microsoft.co
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:34 PM
Op dinsdag 31-03-2009 om 19:37 uur [tijdzone +0300], schreef Simon
Dahlbacka:
The unknown publisher warning sounds like OP is running Vista.
The
warning is due to the fact that the installer isn't authenticode
signed. Getting a suitabl
Op dinsdag 31-03-2009 om 19:37 uur [tijdzone +0300], schreef Simon
Dahlbacka:
> The unknown publisher warning sounds like OP is running Vista. The
> warning is due to the fact that the installer isn't authenticode
> signed. Getting a suitable certificate for this is several hundred €/$
> per year,
The unknown publisher warning sounds like OP is running Vista. The
warning is due to the fact that the installer isn't authenticode
signed. Getting a suitable certificate for this is several hundred €/$
per year, and thus is not likely to happen.
___
li
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:14:43AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
> > I wouldn't say that. It would provide notification of a botched
> > download (if anybody checks it), or notification of a very
> > sophisicated man-in-the-middle atta
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:51:36PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> It would be trivial, but as the md5sums would be autogenerated, so it
>> does not buy any protection against anything.
>
> I wouldn't say that. It would provide notifica
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:51:36PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> It would be trivial, but as the md5sums would be autogenerated, so it
> does not buy any protection against anything.
I wouldn't say that. It would provide notification of a botched
download (if anybody checks it), or notificatio
It would be trivial, but as the md5sums would be autogenerated, so it
does not buy any protection against anything.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:26:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>
>> I believe we can consider downloads from lilypond
I was able to download winMd5Sum for free from http://www.nullriver.com/.
Open the application (I have a shortcut on the desktop and just double click
the icon) and put in the path\filename for the file and the MD5Sum and go
for it.
Ralph
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Christ van Willegen
wrote
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:26:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>
>> I believe we can consider downloads from lilypond.org to be safe,
>> but Dirk does have a point: how does he verify [binary] downloads?
>
> Perhaps we could add a colu
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:26:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> I believe we can consider downloads from lilypond.org to be safe,
> but Dirk does have a point: how does he verify [binary] downloads?
Perhaps we could add a column with md5sums of all the installers to
the download page? Thi
Op zondag 29-03-2009 om 10:38 uur [tijdzone +], schreef dirk van der
eerden:
Hi Dirk,
[dit is een engelstalige lijst, kun je in het vervolg hier Engels
praten?]
> probeer 2.12 te installeren, maar krijg waarschuwing uitgever onbekend, geen
> digitale handtekening. Wordt geadviseerd niet te
probeer 2.12 te installeren, maar krijg waarschuwing uitgever onbekend, geen
digitale handtekening. Wordt geadviseerd niet te installeren.
Graag advies.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypon
17 matches
Mail list logo
