AutoHotkey Community

Doesn't it cost money to get a "signature"? If so I suspect for many AutoHotkey users it won't be useful + there is no need to distribute compiled scripts unless you want to (try to) hide your source code and charge money for your application. Perhaps the AutoHotkey.exe should be "signed" to gain some trust with the AV companies.

_________________
AHK FAQ
TF : Text files & strings lib, TF Forum

There are several different offers that I found (below a small selection, no affiliation with any of them, purely for informational purpose), and it is of course a matter of choice whether you want your users to click on a scary dialogue because you don't want to sign the binary.

I have moved now to a platform (Lazarus) that is "Windows compatible" in the sense that it at least does not make it impossible to sign your binaries.

Achim

PS: Some certificates:
17 EUR /year or trial certificate: https://www.ascertia.com/OnlineCA/default.aspx
79$ a year: http://www.lindersoft.com/order_codesigning.htm
99$ a year: https://secure.ksoftware.net/code_signing.html

Free: publish & distribute source code and no scary dialog

_________________
AHK FAQ
TF : Text files & strings lib, TF Forum

Really?

Could you please share how you request elevation of privileges withing a AHK?

And once that works: does that really prevent the warning dialog since Autohotkey.exe itself is not signed?

See Support for UAC #2.
I suppose not, but there shouldn't be anything to prevent it from being signed.

One problem with AutoHotkey.exe being signed is that it can run any random, possibly malicious script, and the UAC prompt would identify a "trusted" author rather than the real author of the script. Of course, it's less of a risk than with compiled scripts since the source code is visible (for those that are aware).

This has been solved, please see http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/topic75595.html

Thanks Lexikos!