问题
Currently our company uses a digital certificate from Versign/Symtanec for code signing our software.
We have someone in our company attempting to persuade us to use a self-signed certificate instead of one purchased from Verisign/Symantec. Partially as a "cost-down" procedure (even though they're pretty damn cheap for a 2-3 year renewal), and partially to make things easier in a patching sense, as the systems our software runs on (industrial machines) has installed software with a non-Windows certificate store in which our certificate also needs to be managed. Apparently they want use to use the Windows Root CA in order to generate our certificate so we don't have to keep patching new certificates on and our certificate will essentially last as long as the Windows Root CA is valid ...
Everywhere I've been looking, I've found that some people use self-signed certificates for things like website identity verification over the net, but when used in a code-signing context, there are a lot of examples for certificate generation and people saying that you can use them for testing in an environment that's closer to a production environment (which I have done in the past), but I can't find any hard reasons as to why not to use a self-signed certificate for code-signing production software.
It's been a while since I've had to look a the certificate side of things, but this just feels wrong.
It's possible that just I'm not experienced enough with certificates to see why this is a good idea. Does anyone have any input to help me understand the full implications of this?
回答1:
Using a self-signed certificate should not work. The idea is that "someone trustable" (not you; but Verisign or some other party that should check your credentials) confirms that something is certified.
I'm not sure exactly how this works in Windows. Might be that they didn't implement something properly.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29402922/using-self-signed-certificate-for-code-signing-software