I don't think self-cert is sufficient if you are distributing the product. I
think you have to purchase/license from a vendor of that service.
That assuredly means that people are just going to have to live with a
message on the free stuff that I distribute. Unless, of course, some vendor
thought that it'd be such good advertising for me to use their product that
they'd provide it for me free. I'm afraid my lack of "star power" eliminates
that as a possibility.
I don't know what the certification service costs, because I don't do
general distribution. All my "paying work" is either consulting or "bespoke"
systems done for specific clients.
But, if I were to expand to address a more general, multi-customer market,
then it appears that I'd be forced to investigate. It would just be a
necessary cost of doing business and like all such costs, would affect my
cost/price/ROI calculations.
Larry Linson
"TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote in message news:1068253295.193449@teuthos...[color=blue]
> Larry, as for the certificates issue, say a user has set the new security
> levels (whatever they are) to high. What (in summary) does the developer
> need to do to ensure that his db product can be opened without any[/color]
warnings?[color=blue]
> Is that the "self cert" thing? What (roughly) is involved in terms of the
> process, cost & complexity?
>
> TIA,
> TC
>
>
> Larry Linson <bouncer@localhost.not> wrote in message
> news:dcGqb.9122$E9.1948@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...[color=green]
> > "TC" wrote
> >[color=darkred]
> > > There's been some talk recently that
> > > you can not open a 2003 db (containing
> > > VBA) seamlessly, unless you provide a
> > > digital certificate![/color]
> >
> > You can set macro security (new) to "Low" and you won't be any less[/color][/color]
secure[color=blue][color=green]
> > than you have been since Access 1.0. Or you can use a "selfcert" to[/color]
> certify[color=green]
> > your own databases, if you aren't in the business and need to certify[/color][/color]
with[color=blue]
> a[color=green]
> > public certificate.
> >
> > And, if it isn't "signed" and you haven't set macro security to "Low",[/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green]
> > it does is give you a message box telling you that if it has VBA it[/color][/color]
could[color=blue]
> do[color=green]
> > damage.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > I for one will not be going within
> > > 50 miles of 2003, until I know more
> > > about *that* one.[/color]
> >
> > But, if you don't need improved collaboration features in a corporate
> > setting and/or improved XML, then there's little compelling reason to[/color]
> change[color=green]
> > from Access 2002. There are some modest improvements for the individual[/color]
> user[color=green]
> > and small organization, but nothing earthshaking.
> >
> > Larry Linson
> > Microsoft Access MVP
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]
