Is there anything I can do for my Setup MSI / EXE that will make it trusted
so that it will automatically run elevated without prompting the user?

Thanks!

- Joe Geretz -

"Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Is there anything I can do for my Setup MSI / EXE that will make it
> trusted so that it will automatically run elevated without prompting the
> user?
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Joe Geretz -

I think what you need is a code signing certificate - e.g. from
http://www.instantssl.com/

--
John Blessing

http://www.LbeHelpdesk.com - Help Desk software priced to suit all
businesses
http://www.room-booking-software.com - Schedule rooms & equipment bookings
for your meeting/class over the web.
http://www.lbetoolbox.com - Remove Duplicates from MS Outlook, find/replace,
send newsletters

That doesn't make it run without a UAC prompt. You can't do that unless, I
surmise, you make a manifest that defines the execution level as the user
with no elevation.

"John Blessing" wrote:

>
> "Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Is there anything I can do for my Setup MSI / EXE that will make it
> > trusted so that it will automatically run elevated without prompting the
> > user?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - Joe Geretz -
>
> I think what you need is a code signing certificate - e.g. from
> http://www.instantssl.com/
>
> --
> John Blessing
>
> http://www.LbeHelpdesk.com - Help Desk software priced to suit all
> businesses
> http://www.room-booking-software.com - Schedule rooms & equipment bookings
> for your meeting/class over the web.
> http://www.lbetoolbox.com - Remove Duplicates from MS Outlook, find/replace,
> send newsletters
>
>
>

So the capability of the manifest is to either:

1. Specify that the executable does not require elevation.
2. Specify the the executable will require elevation, in which case Windows
will raise the elevation dialog before launching.

But I guess there is no way to achieve the following?

3. Executable will require elevation. Executable is trusted and so Windows
will elevate the executable without prompting the user?

No way to achieve option 3?

Thanks,

Joseph Geretz

"Jesper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2C62EC37-EAD9-4128-B3D8-(E-Mail Removed)...
> That doesn't make it run without a UAC prompt. You can't do that unless, I
> surmise, you make a manifest that defines the execution level as the user
> with no elevation.
>
> "John Blessing" wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Is there anything I can do for my Setup MSI / EXE that will make it
>> > trusted so that it will automatically run elevated without prompting
>> > the
>> > user?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > - Joe Geretz -
>>
>> I think what you need is a code signing certificate - e.g. from
>> http://www.instantssl.com/
>>
>> --
>> John Blessing
>>
>> http://www.LbeHelpdesk.com - Help Desk software priced to suit all
>> businesses
>> http://www.room-booking-software.com - Schedule rooms & equipment
>> bookings
>> for your meeting/class over the web.
>> http://www.lbetoolbox.com - Remove Duplicates from MS Outlook,
>> find/replace,
>> send newsletters
>>
>>
>>

Nope, not even Microsoft do that - all their apps which require UAC get
prompted - although the OS ones have a slightly different display than
the signed/unsigned versions.

D

Joseph Geretz wrote:
> So the capability of the manifest is to either:
>
> 1. Specify that the executable does not require elevation.
> 2. Specify the the executable will require elevation, in which case Windows
> will raise the elevation dialog before launching.
>
> But I guess there is no way to achieve the following?
>
> 3. Executable will require elevation. Executable is trusted and so Windows
> will elevate the executable without prompting the user?
>
> No way to achieve option 3?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joseph Geretz
>
> "Jesper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:2C62EC37-EAD9-4128-B3D8-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> That doesn't make it run without a UAC prompt. You can't do that unless, I
>> surmise, you make a manifest that defines the execution level as the user
>> with no elevation.
>>
>> "John Blessing" wrote:
>>
>>> "Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Is there anything I can do for my Setup MSI / EXE that will make it
>>>> trusted so that it will automatically run elevated without prompting
>>>> the
>>>> user?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> - Joe Geretz -
>>> I think what you need is a code signing certificate - e.g. from
>>> http://www.instantssl.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Blessing
>>>
>>> http://www.LbeHelpdesk.com - Help Desk software priced to suit all
>>> businesses
>>> http://www.room-booking-software.com - Schedule rooms & equipment
>>> bookings
>>> for your meeting/class over the web.
>>> http://www.lbetoolbox.com - Remove Duplicates from MS Outlook,
>>> find/replace,
>>> send newsletters
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

It is not a matter of trusting the executable. It is the matter of the user
understanding (and consenting to) running something that requires
administrative privileges. UAC is not intended to warn people that some
executable might be bad. It is intended to enable people to run without admin
privs most of the time.

There is a third option for the manifest. You can also specify that the
executable should run with the maximum privilege available to the user. A
standard user would run the executable without elevation. A user in the
Administrators group would get prompted for elevation to create a token with
Administrators enabled. This is what is being used for regedit, for example.

"David Hearn" wrote:

> Nope, not even Microsoft do that - all their apps which require UAC get
> prompted - although the OS ones have a slightly different display than
> the signed/unsigned versions.
>
> D
>
> Joseph Geretz wrote:
> > So the capability of the manifest is to either:
> >
> > 1. Specify that the executable does not require elevation.
> > 2. Specify the the executable will require elevation, in which case Windows
> > will raise the elevation dialog before launching.
> >
> > But I guess there is no way to achieve the following?
> >
> > 3. Executable will require elevation. Executable is trusted and so Windows
> > will elevate the executable without prompting the user?
> >
> > No way to achieve option 3?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joseph Geretz
> >
> > "Jesper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:2C62EC37-EAD9-4128-B3D8-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> That doesn't make it run without a UAC prompt. You can't do that unless, I
> >> surmise, you make a manifest that defines the execution level as the user
> >> with no elevation.
> >>
> >> "John Blessing" wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>>> Is there anything I can do for my Setup MSI / EXE that will make it
> >>>> trusted so that it will automatically run elevated without prompting
> >>>> the
> >>>> user?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> - Joe Geretz -
> >>> I think what you need is a code signing certificate - e.g. from
> >>> http://www.instantssl.com/
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> John Blessing
> >>>
> >>> http://www.LbeHelpdesk.com - Help Desk software priced to suit all
> >>> businesses
> >>> http://www.room-booking-software.com - Schedule rooms & equipment
> >>> bookings
> >>> for your meeting/class over the web.
> >>> http://www.lbetoolbox.com - Remove Duplicates from MS Outlook,
> >>> find/replace,
> >>> send newsletters
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

"Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> 3. Executable will require elevation. Executable is trusted and so Windows
> will elevate the executable without prompting the user?
>
> No way to achieve option 3?

If someone finds a method on monday, I'd expect a virus or other similar
malware to drive a truck through the method by wednesday morning at the very
latest. So I hope not.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen a lot of posts from you
over the past few weeks asking why/how to get around various parts of the
operating system as a developer. I realise it's a lot of work... hell I
don't even _like_ Vista myself so I don't agree with how it does everything
and I'm not defending it, but if I may be so bold, I'd suggest you might
find it easier in the long run to refactor your application to work with
Vista in one of its "accepted" ways.

--
Robert Moir
http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com

> I'd suggest you might
> find it easier in the long run to refactor your application to work with
> Vista in one of its "accepted" ways.

I'm REALLY, REALLY hoping you'd find far more customers that way too than if
you tried to somehow work around it.

> Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen a lot of posts from
> you over the past few weeks asking why/how to get around various parts of
> the operating system as a developer.

I certainly won't take this the wrong way, because evidently you're not
referring to anything I've posted. When you use phraseology like 'get
around' various parts of the operating system, I really have no idea what
your referring to. Asking for specs on how an oprating system operates
shouldn't be construed as an attempt to 'get around' the OS. Or perhaps
you've just hit on why MS typically witholds that information? They think
that vendors will use it to 'get around' the OS?

- Joseph Geretz -

"Robert Moir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Joseph Geretz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> 3. Executable will require elevation. Executable is trusted and so
>> Windows will elevate the executable without prompting the user?
>>
>> No way to achieve option 3?
>
> If someone finds a method on monday, I'd expect a virus or other similar
> malware to drive a truck through the method by wednesday morning at the
> very latest. So I hope not.
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen a lot of posts from
> you over the past few weeks asking why/how to get around various parts of
> the operating system as a developer. I realise it's a lot of work... hell
> I don't even _like_ Vista myself so I don't agree with how it does
> everything and I'm not defending it, but if I may be so bold, I'd suggest
> you might find it easier in the long run to refactor your application to
> work with Vista in one of its "accepted" ways.
>
> --
> Robert Moir
> http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com
>