Re: Digital Signature for MIDlet?

My experience is that the signing situation is a real minefield. For the
benefits gained (potentially fewer permission alerts, fewer warnings on
installation and in some cases access to protected APIs) the downside is
that the installation success rate is likely to nosedive.

It does seem from my tests that the Verisign certificate is the most
commonly supported, but even that is not sufficiently common in my view
to make it feasible, with the possible exception of if you're targeting
a particular, small sets of handsets on a particular network in a
particular country.

Saying that the target is just MIDP 2.0 phones suggests to me that
you're looking at a much broader success than that though and I'm afraid
I would suggest you convince your client against signing. If not I would
suggest careful targeting so that you send signed MIDlets only to phones
which your own testing shows will accept them.

Sorry if that sounds negative. :-)

Cheers,
Kirwan


foo shyn wrote:
> The application is targeted at MIDP 2.0 platform phone. We need it to be
> signed as well as connect to WAP through SSL connection because of
> client's request.
>
> Thanx
> FooShyn
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> What is the purpose of signing your application? If you need to run
>> in a particular protection domain you need to check first that the
>> devices you are planning to deploy to actually support that
>> protection domain with a Verisign certificate.
>>
>> -- Terrence
>> [Message sent by forum member 'terrencebarr' (terrencebarr)]
>>
>> http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=227943
>
>

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the body
of the message "signoff KVM-INTEREST".  For general help, send email to
[email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".