certifying the drivers software

Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?
Thanks

If you're writing software for a large number of people, or drivers for a lot of people, it's a good idea to get a digital certificate so when they download your product or drivers, it comes with your certificate saying "yes, this is genuine Stefan's software, because the certificate is there" :o)
It's overall much better for business as it shows you're genuine :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--- Original message follows --- "Stefan" wrote in message

Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?
Thanks

I'm pretty sure that I saw somewhere that kernel mode drivers will have to be digitally signed to be installable, although I think that currently only applies to 64bit stuff.
-- </Slugsie> "Stefan" wrote in message

Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?

For Windows Vista and later versions of the Windows family of operating systems, kernel-mode software must have a digital signature to load on x64-based computer systems.
This paper describes how to manage the signing process for kernel-mode code for Windows Vista, including how to obtain a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC), guidelines for protecting keys, and how to sign a driver package by using tools that are provided in the Windows Driver Kit (WDK).
What this means for Windows Vista. To increase the safety and stability of the Microsoft Windows platform, beginning with Windows Vista:
. Users who are not administrators cannot install unsigned device drivers.
. Drivers must be signed for devices that stream protected content. This includes audio drivers that use Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) and Protected Audio Path (PAP), and video device drivers that handle protected video path-output protection management (PVP-OPM) commands.
. Unsigned kernel-mode software will not load and will not run on x64-based systems.
Note: Even users with administrator privileges cannot load unsigned kernel-mode code on x64-based systems. This applies for any software module that loads in kernel mode, including device drivers, filter drivers, and kernel services.
. To optimize the performance of driver verification at boot time, boot-driver binaries must have an embedded Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) in addition to the signed .cat file for the package.
Read the rest here
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bit/kmsigning.mspx -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Slugsie" wrote in message

I'm pretty sure that I saw somewhere that kernel mode drivers will have to be digitally signed to be installable, although I think that currently only applies to 64bit stuff.
-- /Slugsie "Stefan" wrote in message Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?

Not only that, but it recognizes quality, so that when a user downloads say video driver from you, they are guaranteed its not take down the entire system or affect additional hardware devices.
Driver Signing & File Protection: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvsign.mspx
Additional Resources: Windows Vista logo program: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/LH_logo.mspx
Vista Logo proposed requrements: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/hwrequirements.mspx
FAQs about the logo program: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/VistaLogofaq.mspx -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message

If you're writing software for a large number of people, or drivers for a lot of people, it's a good idea to get a digital certificate so when they download your product or drivers, it comes with your certificate saying "yes, this is genuine Stefan's software, because the certificate is there" :o)
It's overall much better for business as it shows you're genuine :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--- Original message follows --- "Stefan" wrote in message Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?
Thanks

Does that mean, I'd have to buy that certificate? Is it affordable for a poor student? Or is it only for big companies? Then good-bye to free driver projects such as dscaler, kX-Project, bttv (or whatever the win32 equivalent is called)

I have no idea about the cost, but I suspect it won't be cheap.
However, remember that this is only for 'Kernel' mode drivers. Which drivers are kernal mode?... not sure, but I suspect that it's stuff like motherboards etc. A lot of work has been done to move things out of the kernal, sound drivers are one that springs to mind. Dunno if video has been taken out of the kernal, but it would make sense if it has.
-- </Slugsie> "Jens Mander" wrote in message

Does that mean, I'd have to buy that certificate? Is it affordable for a poor student? Or is it only for big companies? Then good-bye to free driver projects such as dscaler, kX-Project, bttv (or whatever the win32 equivalent is called)

I may be wrong (often am ;) ), but I don't think it means anything of the sort. Given the right resources, anyone could write a driver which could do anything to your systems. All the signing does is proove that the software comes from who it says it comes from. Nothing else.
-- </Slugsie> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Not only that, but it recognizes quality, so that when a user downloads say video driver from you, they are guaranteed its not take down the entire system or affect additional hardware devices.

The driver signing process is what you are paying each year for, Microsoft has to do a lot of testing on their end. Remember, you developing driver that could be potentially used by nearly a billion people. Its really targetted at anybody, just as long as you can afford cost, but you should be looking at benefits at the same time, what are you getting out of it?
Driver signing is so important, especially in Vista, we need reliable drivers, and Microsoft realizes that. I think it benefits us all, providing the user with a great experience and the developer with a great, respectable reputation. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Jens Mander" wrote in message

Does that mean, I'd have to buy that certificate? Is it affordable for a poor student? Or is it only for big companies? Then good-bye to free driver projects such as dscaler, kX-Project, bttv (or whatever the win32 equivalent is called)

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

The driver signing process is what you are paying each year for, Microsoft has to do a lot of testing on their end. Remember, you developing driver that could be potentially used by nearly a billion people. Its really targetted at anybody, just as long as you can afford cost, but you should be looking at benefits at the same time, what are you getting out of it?
Driver signing is so important, especially in Vista, we need reliable drivers, and Microsoft realizes that. I think it benefits us all, providing the user with a great experience and the developer with a great, respectable reputation.

But free and open-source developers probably could never afford such a certification - take the forementioned bt8x8-Chipset-Driver (for analog TV) for example: Original Hardware Manufacturers (like Hauppauge) developed drivers (probably signed) which are less performant and got fewer features than their free open-source counterpart developed by a third party.. (Hauppauge even used parts of an open-source-project later on..) - there still should be a possibility to use unsigned drivers - and I don't think (but maybe I'm wrong there, feel free to correct me!), that performant drivers eg. for video don't involve kernel mangling.. Also think of those "modded" VGA-Drivers for ATI and nVidia cards, e.g. from omegadrive or DNA.. Sure: They are unsupported and may prove instable - but I still should be able to use them at my own risk. I'd prefer it the way this is handled in XP: Select wether you want to use only signed drivers (eg. where stability and "it-just-works" is important) or being able to take the "risk" of using non-signed drivers (for us kids who'll have to try everything) :-)

You can still use unsigned drivers, but that would probably be only for Vista x86, as mentioned, the Vista x64 release will require kernel mode drivers to be certified. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Jens Mander" wrote in message

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" schrieb im Newsbeitrag The driver signing process is what you are paying each year for, Microsoft has to do a lot of testing on their end. Remember, you developing driver that could be potentially used by nearly a billion people. Its really targetted at anybody, just as long as you can afford cost, but you should be looking at benefits at the same time, what are you getting out of it?
Driver signing is so important, especially in Vista, we need reliable drivers, and Microsoft realizes that. I think it benefits us all, providing the user with a great experience and the developer with a great, respectable reputation.
But free and open-source developers probably could never afford such a certification - take the forementioned bt8x8-Chipset-Driver (for analog TV) for example: Original Hardware Manufacturers (like Hauppauge) developed drivers (probably signed) which are less performant and got fewer features than their free open-source counterpart developed by a third party.. (Hauppauge even used parts of an open-source-project later on..) - there still should be a possibility to use unsigned drivers - and I don't think (but maybe I'm wrong there, feel free to correct me!), that performant drivers eg. for video don't involve kernel mangling.. Also think of those "modded" VGA-Drivers for ATI and nVidia cards, e.g. from omegadrive or DNA.. Sure: They are unsupported and may prove instable - but I still should be able to use them at my own risk. I'd prefer it the way this is handled in XP: Select wether you want to use only signed drivers (eg. where stability and "it-just-works" is important) or being able to take the "risk" of using non-signed drivers (for us kids who'll have to try everything) :-)

Keep in mind when talking the 64-bit requirement for driver to be signed, they don't mean WHQL signing, they mean at least PIC signing. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

You can still use unsigned drivers, but that would probably be only for Vista x86, as mentioned, the Vista x64 release will require kernel mode drivers to be certified. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Jens Mander" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" schrieb im Newsbeitrag The driver signing process is what you are paying each year for, Microsoft has to do a lot of testing on their end. Remember, you developing driver that could be potentially used by nearly a billion people. Its really targetted at anybody, just as long as you can afford cost, but you should be looking at benefits at the same time, what are you getting out of it?
Driver signing is so important, especially in Vista, we need reliable drivers, and Microsoft realizes that. I think it benefits us all, providing the user with a great experience and the developer with a great, respectable reputation.
But free and open-source developers probably could never afford such a certification - take the forementioned bt8x8-Chipset-Driver (for analog TV) for example: Original Hardware Manufacturers (like Hauppauge) developed drivers (probably signed) which are less performant and got fewer features than their free open-source counterpart developed by a third party.. (Hauppauge even used parts of an open-source-project later on..) - there still should be a possibility to use unsigned drivers - and I don't think (but maybe I'm wrong there, feel free to correct me!), that performant drivers eg. for video don't involve kernel mangling.. Also think of those "modded" VGA-Drivers for ATI and nVidia cards, e.g. from omegadrive or DNA.. Sure: They are unsupported and may prove instable - but I still should be able to use them at my own risk. I'd prefer it the way this is handled in XP: Select wether you want to use only signed drivers (eg. where stability and "it-just-works" is important) or being able to take the "risk" of using non-signed drivers (for us kids who'll have to try everything) :-)

Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?
Thanks

answered in .general. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Stefan" wrote in message

Hi,
is the certifying of the drivers/ software necessary ? How it my software is not?
Thanks