I'm converting a VB6 dll to VB.Net using Visual Studio 2008 Express. I want to use the same .dll to integrate with Excel via Excel-DNA, but also to be available via COM (I need to be able to call it from VBScript and VBA).
If I leave the assembly unsigned, I have access to all of the ExcelDNA functionality but no COM access.
If I sign the assembly with a strong name, then when I try to build the .dll I get the following error:
Unable to emit assembly: Referenced assembly 'ExcelDna.Integration' does not have a strong name.What are my options?
Where can I get a free code signing certificate for signing my applications? Ascertia used to give them out for free but apparently they don't anymore.
how to Using Com on Dot Net Program that have strong key ?i get a com dll that need to used to control finger scan hardware.and i already added it in my vb dot net program. it completely work fine.but after i added my strong key to my vb dot net program, i can not compile my program. it seem because of com dll doesnt have strong key.
I have to pass the name of the property to a function call. (Please don't ask why it should be done this way, its a third party framework). For example SomeFunc("MyItem") But what I would like to do is, change the string into a strongly typed parameter. Meaning, if the property name is renamed or changed, it should be reflected here too. So something of this type :
I'm trying to change the "load path" of all DLL-files that i have refereed to with this code
Function MyResolveEventHandler(ByVal sender As Object, _ ByVal args As ResolveEventArgs) As [Assembly] 'This handler is called only when the common language runtime tries to bind to the assembly
I Finish my program but my interface is not good (its just a picture & its almost 0) but a good program like vb 2010, bitdefender & ... have very beauty a and strong interface how i can make a good interface
Ok, I've read every question on here about strong named assemblies and just want to clarify something. First though, from what I've read, GAC aside, strong named assemblies prevent a malicious 3rd party changing and impersonating your code. It'd be great to have some links to some real world examples of this kind of spoofing that happened pre strong named assemblies. If security or the GAC are not a concern, It seems that it's still advisable to strong name assemblies because:
(A) Clients who have strong named assemblies can only reference your assemblies if they are signed.
(B) Clients who do not have strong named assemblies can reference your assembly whether it's signed or not.
how to allow dot net program to run from network without strong key ? since i have program put on network, ussually i put strong key on that assembly, and it can work and run from network this program.. but there is some component com object that make me to cannot compile if i put my stong key, so i compile it without stong key, but it came i cannot run this program from my network..
I am trying to make a strong (or even medium-security) based authentication. How this would work is simply by storing a username/code on web (using dropbox perhaps) then using those codes to pass on to friends to use. This way if you remove that code online,that person will no longer be able to access that program. As far as I know, it is quite simple to save the number of uses, or username and pass on a text file to save on their file or registry things can be done but that is only 1 computer based. That is a very easily crackable security and is not worth it.As far as I have know you need to create a new main form where the code/ id/ username/password/onetimelogin will be asked. If it is correct, form2.show if not then "exit". The codes are stores on a text file on dropbox.com like websites, then the link to the textfile is obtained.
I fully realize that what I am proposing does not follow the .NET guidelines, and, therefore, is probably a poor idea for this reason alone. However, I would like to consider this from two possible perspectives:
(1) Should I consider using this for my own development work, which is 100% for internal purposes.
(2) Is this a concept that the framework designers could consider changing or updating?
I am thinking about using an event signature that utilizes a strong typed 'sender', instead of typing it as 'object', which is the current .NET design pattern. That is, instead of using a standard event signature that looks like this:
I am getting a strong naming violation for the dll file and really new to signing applications. How would I proceed in resolving this so that I can build the application I will be supporting? Also, as the FreeImage reference gets updated will I need to re-sign it?
I wanted to ask this question here rather then at the asp.net site (it takes too long to get an answer) because I think I have found a problem with how MVC 1.0 handles custom classes that implement IDataErrorInfo when using view binding. Not sure if this is a problem in v2.0 but I have never heard it mentioned.
Here's a little background, in MVC if I want to have strongly typed view, I create a class that basically holds the post information for me. MVC binds the form fields in the POST to the class properties of the same name for me automatically when I do this rather then implementing the ViewData dictionary.
I see tool like SN which generates private/public key pair for signing an assembly. And using AL tool we can assign a strong name to an assembly. And we have also Sign tool which is used for signing the assembly (probably for using with certificates exclusively?). What is the exact difference between the two?. Is it sign tool have to be used when working with certificates and can it we acheive it SN?. or are they totally different.?
I have an app published using ClickOnce. When an app is published that way, you get a temporary certificate which expires in a year. My year will be up in a couple months, and I am considering my options.One option, which a colleague is using, is to build a more sustained certificate using makecert.exe. By doing this, I can get a certificate of arbitrary length (or so I am told, as I haven't actually followed this route, yet). The problem with this route is that MS is pretty clear that makecert is for testing purposes.
I can also see that I could go to verisign or some such and buy a certificate, but that has a significant cost (well, I'm sure my employer wouldn't be too concerned about it, but it seems pretty high to me). The program has very narrow applicabiliity and narrow appeal (it has to do with counting fish). What I am wondering is whether there is sound reason to go with a certificate that is more than what makecert will create, and what that reason is? Additionally, I'm looking for information as to whether an internal CA, such as we have, which can make a certificate, will cause me any trouble if I use it to sign a ClickOnce app that won't be used entirely internal?
I've got a project which I would like to sign, however I've never done it before and I'm having a bit of trouble. The problem is that one of the dll files the project references is not signed. This results in an error, stating that the project assembly cannot be signed due to an unsigned referenced assembly. I'm not the author of the problematic unsigned assembly, so I can't sign it directly from VS (or at least I don't know how).
I am trying to use NAnt in order to compile and sign an assembly using the vbc compiler. I have a project set up and am able to successfully sign the assembly compiling with VS2010. When I try to sign it using the command line I get this error:
vbc : error BC30140: Error creating assembly manifest: Error signing assembly -- The parameter is incorrect.
I even created a trivially simple app (just an assemblyinfo.vb file) that will not compile and sign using vbc.exe What am I doing wrong?
here is my assemblyinfo.vb:
Option Strict Off Option Explicit On Imports System Imports System.Reflection
[Code]....
I have found that MSBuild also does not like having the AssemblyKeyFile attribute as I have defined it in the AssemblyInfo.vb, it gives the same failure message. So the only way I can currently get this to build correctly is to set properties on the project to tell it which key file to use and to sign the assembly.
The reason this appears to work building the project from within VS2010 is that msbuild is passing /keycontainer to vbc.exe on the command line instead of using /keyfile. Still don't know how to use the /keyfile command line parameter.
I'm using this code to try and show how strong the password is but the panel is changing to DarkRed no matter what is in the TextBox1.What am I doing wrong?
Wrapped it in PHP tags because I think it makes it easier to read >.>
I can encrypt/decrypt fine with a certificate that is in a PFX file because the Private Key is contained in the X509Certificate2, but if I import the certificate to my personal store and mark the private key as non-exportable I have almost no clue what to do to get the decryption done. I have narrow traces to CryptoAPI but I haven't been able to find any articles or code sample neither in VC++ nor C# (to be translated to VB.NET)..
"Error 2 An error occurred while signing: Key not valid for use in specified state." I found this solution on the internet but I have no idea how to do it."Delete all data sources in the Server Explorer and add them again. Run the wizard again."
when I try to publish a program it gives signing error like this:
Quote:
Error2An error occurred while signing: Failed to sign binReleaseapp.publish\setup.exe. SignTool Error: Signtool requires CAPICOM version 2.1.0.1 or higher. Please copy the latest version of CAPICOM.dll into the directory that contains SignTool.exe. If CAPICOM.dll exists, you may not have proper permissions to install CAPICOM.Liquid Transfer
It happens to a company computer and who knows what updates it has. It was working fine the first day I got the computer though.
When I build my project I get a compile error stating "Could not locate the manifest signing certificate in the certificate store". This is a new one to me and I have no idea how to solve it.
I have developed an active x control and signed it with certificate. I know that digital signing is needed , so that the browser knows that the active x comes valid source.My asp.net form has a button , which invokes a method on activex control as -[code]....
But it errors on browser stating that the - IE has blocked this site from using an active x control in an unsafe manner. ( Please see attachment).So should I have to develop the active x control which implement IObjectSafety and also signed digitally, so that it can execute on client browser without any warnings from IE. Any examples.
Hi guys, we have an application which requires elevation to admin rights on VISTA/Windows 7 machine because it provides an ActiveX interface. We can't at present get around this requirement. With a manifest file and on a VISTA machine we get the UAC administrator prompt 'An unidentified program wants access to your computer' and logon request. Disabling UAC is not an option with our clients. I believe that authenticode signing the EXE will at least make the program trusted and thus remove the logon request. But I believe we will still be left with a grey prompt that asks something like 'Did you run this program, do you want to continue' - is this correct? Is there any way of getting rid of the prompts completely?
how can I create a certificate for signing a ClickOnce manifest. At [URL] I have read that makecert is only for testing purposes. So what shall I use to get an certificate?
The .NET security model throws security errors whenever a .NET exe is run from a file share. The error does not appear when ran from a local drive. Does anyone know of a way around this without requiring the code to be signed?
My application is small, I intend to use the installer that comes with VS 2008 Prof.Edition, or ClickOnce.I'm wondering which is better, I need to include a copy of the .NET framework 2.0 in a package, and have it installed simply, and also be easy to uninstall.
