Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We run a controlled Windows 7 environment and have several applications that are digitally signed by the publisher that run under user context fine. However, even now we still get vendors large and small providing us with non signed exe which we have to create “hash rules” in AppLocker that need updating every time the software is updating.

In some cases we get an application from a vendor that has a mixture of both signed and unsigned executables. This infuriates me!

I was just wondering, why would these companies not simply sign all their software? Is it just sloppy development or is there a genuine reason such as a cost per exe signed?

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by magicandre1981, Tog, Mokubai, mpy, Shekhar Aug 27 '13 at 20:14

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

we can't answer this here. Ask this the support of the tools. Such a certificate costs several hundreds of dollars and mabay they don't want to pay it, but this is pure speculation, that's why I voted to close your question. – magicandre1981 Aug 27 '13 at 4:27
Have you thought of the bureaucracy needed in a large organization to manage and secure signature keys? – Daniel R Hicks Aug 27 '13 at 4:28

Browse other questions tagged .