Vista x64 To Require Digital Signatures For Drivers

SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
edited January 2006 in Science & Tech
Microsoft have just announced that the x64 version of Windows Vista will require all kernel-mode code to be digitally signed. This is very different than the current WHQL program, where the user ultimately decides how they want to handle unsigned drivers.

View: Microsoft x64 PIC Driver Requirements
Vista driver developers must obtain a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft. Microsoft says they won't charge for it, but they require that you have a Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate from Verisign. This costs $500 per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities.
Source: OS News

Comments

  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited January 2006
    3rd party workaround in 5...4...3...2...
  • ArmoArmo Mr. Nice Guy Is Dead,Only Aqua Remains Member
    edited January 2006
    pfft, vista can kiss my ass
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Guess I'm using Windows 2000 through its EOL. The more I read about Vista, the less I like it; it seems as though it was designed for the ignorant Best Buy customer who will fall for necessity via marketing every time.

    Vista really makes me angry.
  • EMTEMT Seattle, WA Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Yep... Win2k is still king :)
  • GrayFoxGrayFox /dev/urandom Member
    edited January 2006
    Thrax wrote:
    Guess I'm using Windows 2000 through its EOL. The more I read about Vista, the less I like it; it seems as though it was designed for the ignorant Best Buy customer who will fall for necessity via marketing every time.

    Vista really makes me angry.
    Fully agreed W2K kicks ass.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited January 2006
    So basicly, unless you already have ton of money in the bank, you can't develop drivers for Microsoft's flagship OS?

    This won't last very long at all. If this blocks start up companies from developing new products for consumers, MS will have to decide if they want to choose who can develop drivers for their OS, or face more antitrust suits then they could shake a wallet at.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Please note that most drivers do not need to access the Windows Kernel in Vista's API model, thus ...
    all kernel-mode code to be digitally signed
    is only relevant to drivers that insist on running in kernel-mode ;)
  • Unknown
    edited January 2006
    No more Omega drivers for ATI fans.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited January 2006
    Shorty wrote:
    Please note that most drivers do not need to access the Windows Kernel in Vista's API model, thus ...
    is only relevant to drivers that insist on running in kernel-mode ;)
    What would be an example of a kernel-mode driver?
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    profdlp wrote:
    What would be an example of a kernel-mode driver?

    GFX, file system, etc... though I think I read that MS is doing away with having the GFX system built into the kernal, it will now be a standalone system of some sort. To prevent alot of crashes.
  • hypermoodhypermood Smyrna, GA New
    edited January 2006
    RWB wrote:
    GFX, file system, etc... though I think I read that MS is doing away with having the GFX system built into the kernal, it will now be a standalone system of some sort. To prevent alot of crashes.
    NT 3.51 ran the GDI in user space (not kernel mode) as opposed to all newer NT's where it runs in kernel mode. The obvious advantage is that the OS can trap exceptions and continue when your graphics driver blows up - *no blue screens due to graphics drivers.* The big disadvantage is that to actually talk to the hardware and access memory reserved for the kernel you need to be executing under a "privileged" mode of execution. Switching back and forth incurs some overhead. Fortunately, this isn't as much of a problem today as it was 10 years ago when MS made the "optimization".

    I really don't agree with the new MS policy on preventing even administrators from being able to install unsigned code. Perhaps you'll be able to download or setup a mini "checked kernel" (MS lingo for a debug kernel) to be able to run/develop unsigned kernel code. If not, I suspect that we'll see some backlash here.
  • Unknown
    edited January 2006
    this is bullshit. im keeping 2000pro. all xp really was is 2000 with a facelift and a few added features. vista...not what i wanted.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    The pessimists and naysayers also said that the world was coming to an end with the release of XP -- too complex, too many restrictions, too much control by Microsoft. If Vista has the tremendous flexibility that XP does, the options to pare down services for instance, I'm sure it will be a great OS.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited January 2006
    Leonardo wrote:
    The pessimists and naysayers also said that the world was coming to an end with the release of XP -- too complex, too many restrictions, too much control by Microsoft. If Vista has the tremendous flexibility that XP does, the options to pare down services for instance, I'm sure it will be a great OS.
    [Click-Click] Alright buddy lets go. Calm, Moderated, Voices of Reason aren't allowed here!
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Leonardo wrote:
    The pessimists and naysayers also said that the world was coming to an end with the release of XP -- too complex, too many restrictions, too much control by Microsoft. If Vista has the tremendous flexibility that XP does, the options to pare down services for instance, I'm sure it will be a great OS.

    Sadly, Windows XP's ideal experience comes in the form of the oft-illegal corporate version which has no authentications, time-outs and lock-outs. Windows XP is burdensome without this version.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Hmmm....good point, Thrax. I've hardly used XP Home at all, so I'm ignorant in that facet of XP. XP Pro is still a fine OS, if one has the time and curiosity to learn all its facets. Still though, what is an OS producer to do? Customers, meaning Jan and Jon Doe, Corporation X, Company Y, want much from a desktop/PC OS:

    operate across nearly all platforms
    be scalable for anything from standalone laptops to 1000-PC networks
    accept hundreds/thousands of various hardware configurations
    be compatible with scores of thousands of software creations
    be adaptable to new scores of thousands of new software creations
    be plug and play for neophytes
    be acceptable to advanced users

    In other words, it is demanded of Microsoft that their desktop OS be all things to all people. NO ONE asks that of OSX or any of the Linux distributions. Microsoft will never produce the one-size-fits-all solution, but I give them points for trying.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    But things like WPA, DRM and HDCP do nothing to work towards those ends. They're annoying additions at best, and downright conniving and obtrusive at their worst.
  • BLuKnightBLuKnight Lehi, UT Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    I like W2k but after Rollup Patch 1, it just blew everything up. I've on XP now. I like the Remote Desktop (RDC) feature so I can connect to my computer any time I want. VNC is nice, and I use it, but I like the feel of RDC. BYU's CS department gives out free copies of Windows XP Pro. So I have a legit free license. Maybe if I stay in college long enough, I'll get a free copy of Vista. :)
  • GrayFoxGrayFox /dev/urandom Member
    edited January 2006
    Thrax wrote:
    But things like WPA, DRM and HDCP do nothing to work towards those ends. They're annoying additions at best, and downright conniving and obtrusive at their worst.
    You forgot trusted computing
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    things like WPA, DRM and HDCP do nothing to work towards those ends
    I agree.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited January 2006
    That lousy Roosevelt and his WPA... :rant:
  • Unknown
    edited January 2006
    i think microsoft needs to make operating systems, not control systems. if i buy an os, i dont want it watching what i do and reporting to every damn agency and association in the world.
Sign In or Register to comment.