Vista x64 To Require Digital Signatures For Drivers

22 Jan, 2006 at 4:32pm ET Article published in 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

22 Jan 2006 ~ 5:02pm profdlp 3rd party workaround in 5...4...3...2...
22 Jan 2006 ~ 6:13pm Armo pfft, vista can kiss my ass
22 Jan 2006 ~ 6:29pm Thrax 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.
22 Jan 2006 ~ 7:36pm EMT Yep... Win2k is still king
22 Jan 2006 ~ 9:59pm GrayFox

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.
23 Jan 2006 ~ 12:08am TheSmJ 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.
23 Jan 2006 ~ 2:14am Shorty 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
23 Jan 2006 ~ 8:52am No more Omega drivers for ATI fans.
23 Jan 2006 ~ 10:05am profdlp

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?
23 Jan 2006 ~ 10:39am RWB

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.
23 Jan 2006 ~ 8:07pm hypermood

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.
24 Jan 2006 ~ 11:14am 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.
24 Jan 2006 ~ 2:22pm Leonardo 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.
24 Jan 2006 ~ 6:10pm Omega65

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!
24 Jan 2006 ~ 6:35pm Thrax

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.
24 Jan 2006 ~ 7:09pm Leonardo 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.
24 Jan 2006 ~ 10:53pm Thrax 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.
25 Jan 2006 ~ 12:42am BLuKnight 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.
25 Jan 2006 ~ 11:45am GrayFox

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
25 Jan 2006 ~ 12:12pm Leonardo

things like WPA, DRM and HDCP do nothing to work towards those ends

I agree.
25 Jan 2006 ~ 12:25pm profdlp That lousy Roosevelt and his WPA...
26 Jan 2006 ~ 11:39pm 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.