Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Vista x64 To Require Signed Drivers

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the circumvented-in-3-2-1 dept.

Anonymous Coward writes "With little fanfare, Microsoft 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. 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 [EUR 412] per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities."

56 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. All this will do... by ajiva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All this is going to do is prevent software that emulate hardware (Daemon Tools for example) from working properly under Vista. As I recall these types of software pretend to be hardware using unsigned drivers, so this won't work unless they get the drivers signed somehow. Looks like a way to enforce DRM to me.

    1. Re:All this will do... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most probably will , it will also screw over any OSS drivers which don't originate from Companies

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:All this will do... by qwijibo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once this becomes an actual problem, someone will solve it. It's a nuisance at best.

      I have a software consulting business. This is a legal entity that would have a clear justification for getting a Commercial Software Publisher Certificate from Verisign. That would allow me to get the Publisher Identity Certificate from Microsoft. With that, I could compile and sign any open source project I wanted to help out. See how easy it is?

    3. Re:All this will do... by Randolpho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, nearly all hardware emulation drivers, along with most general purpose device drivers, can still be unsigned.

      I suggest folks RTFA. Hell, just read the tagline for /. article. It says "kernel mode", folks, not "user mode". You need a digital signature to write kernel-mode drivers (and, BTW, to stream protected content), but user-mode unlicensed drivers are fair game.

      Frankly, IMO, most drivers *should* be user-mode -- if you're writing your driver in kernel mode, you should re-think your design. Yeah, there's always the necessary exception, but if it's that important, go get a digital signature.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    4. Re:All this will do... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it'll screw over all OSS drivers in general, because if you modify it, it won't work anymore. It defeats the entire point of having the source code in the first place!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:All this will do... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all, this is already an actual problem, because even if you -- the developer -- can compile and sign the software, nobody else can. You might as well just make it closed source, because the DRM won't allow anyone else to usefully edit it anyway!

      Second, if we (collectively) don't do something about this now, in a few years it will be too late: a large enough percentage of hardware will be Treacherous that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/Microsoft will be able to buy a law making non-Treacherous hardware and software (necessarily including all Free Software) illegal.*

      What good will your open source project do, when nobody is allowed to use it?

      (Not to mention that they won't be able to download it to begin with, because the ISPs won't allow (either voluntarily or by law) non-Treacherous clients on the network.)

      *it's about National Security, you see. Good of the country and all that...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:All this will do... by qwijibo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What exactly can we do about it now? I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I've noticed that Microsoft doesn't care what I think. I doubt they care what the slashdot crowd thinks either.

      Do you frequently need to modify drivers you get from third parties? I'm not in favor of removing control from the user, but I also have a hard time finding a way this would impact me in real life. I don't use Windows for any serious work anyway, so that may be a factor in my view of this not being a real problem.

    7. Re:All this will do... by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your rant seems to have nothing to do with Microsoft requiring signed drivers in kernel space for Vista.

      The infrastructure for signing drivers has been in place for years, anyone with a CA can sign them, and it's up to the user to decide whether he trusts the signer. I think Windows Data Center 2003 actually forbids unsigned drivers already.

      Now, if microsoft is requiring kernel drivers to be signed *and* requiring they be signed by WHQL *and* failing to get all the drivers anyone would care about out of kernel space, *then* this would be annoying. But *that* would mean people couldn't play the latest must-have game on Vista for weeks after they could play it on XP (since needed video driver updates almost always accompany the big-name games).

      Microsoft isn't that stupid - no one will buy Vista if they have to wait weeks to play the very games that people buy new computers in order to play. The fact that malware will no longer be able to install a rootkit without getting the user to agree to a driver install warning dialog will be nice, however.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:All this will do... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only well-behaved drivers will have to be signed.

      Cf. XP-SP2

          1) You download a well-behaved, unsigned program windows warns you this might be dangerous. It warns you again that the program's not signed. It warns you a third time when you try to run the program (and every time if you don't change the checkbox)

          But none of this stops web-based malware from downloading and installing itself with no interaction whatsoever.

          2) If you install a well-behaved unsigned driver, you have to first tell Windows that you're _prefer_ that to the signed, generic driver with limited functionality. Then you get warned again that the driver's unsigned.

          But none of this stops Sony's XCP from installing an unsigned, misnamed driver directly into the heart of windows with no user interaction. (The EULA dialog Sony's disks provide could easily have been left out; their other copy protection system installs all the software and -then- asks for permission.)

          Somehow I don't think Vista's security is going to be significantly better. It's designed to stop Open Source, not malware. Open Source is a threat to Microsoft. Malware is a source of additional revenue.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  2. First they lock out open source drivers by etymxris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Next, applications? I'm not sure how they'll deal with developer machines, but then again, that problem should apply for drivers too. It's not really a slippery slope. They've been doing it on the xbox for years, after all. It's not so much the money as the control they have to vet everything that can run on their system.

  3. It's all about the DRM. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary is a bit brief (as well as being plagarized verbatim from OSNews.com, but a brief perusal of the cited Microsoft article is rather illuminating:
    • 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.
    (Boldface mine.)


    It would seem that Microsoft cares more about the profits of the record companies than it does about the ability of its users to be able to use its software. Just one more reason to switch to Linux.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:It's all about the DRM. by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a pretty strong MS backer. All things considered they have done some amazing things and brought products to the people. But I must agree with you, by putting this limitation into applications it will likely drive a lot of the younger crowd, especially developers, to linux (the future of Ubuntu looks bright).

      I would have to see how it plays out at the application level to know more. Can I use the Windows API and play a CD's audio tracks from a home brew .Net app? Or do I need to create a corporate entity to get a license for my own undistributed application?

      If the application level is unaffected by this, then its not that bad. And it will likely be good for security. But if they are enforcing restrictions to the application layer, this could really stiffle non-professional windows development.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:It's all about the DRM. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Can I use the Windows API and play a CD's audio tracks from a home brew .Net app?
      The Windows API will have very little to do with it. Basically, it'll depend on what you want to do.

      For example, just sending the audio to the "Trusted" (i.e. restricted) output devices will work, but "faking" the hardware so as to capture the digital stream to use for Fair Use won't (this is exactly why they're requiring all drivers to be cryptographically signed).

      And there won't be a damn thing you can do about it!
      If the application level is unaffected by this, then its not that bad.

      I'm sure it wasn't that bad when the NAZIs started forcing the Jews to wear stars, either.
      But if they are enforcing restrictions to the application layer, this could really stiffle non-professional windows development.
      Does the phrase "digital serf" mean anything to you? 'Cause that's what Microsoft, the RIAA, and the MPAA want to turn us all into. It won't just stifle non-professional Windows development, it'll stifle culture and creativity in general by setting up tolls every time anyone wants to communicate an idea. It will be like Bellsouth's "two-tiered internet [sic]" but infinitely worse.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:It's all about the DRM. by RingDev · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, I'd rate you +1 insightful just for cramming all that FUD into one post. Well done!

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:It's all about the DRM. by Rhys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And there won't be a damn thing you can do about it until someone finds the first security exploit in the OS!

      So we should have to wait all of what, negative five minutes?

      Seriously. This just copy protection at the OS level. People break game copy protection all the time. People will find a security hole in Vista and use it to do the exact same thing (where's the statement that tests the signed condition... yes some nops there would do nicely) and it'll be wide open again. In the worst case there is always the ability of something like a mod chip to alter signals on the fly. I'd have faith if the hardware gurus can do it to a Xbox they can do it to a PC.

      It is as bad as MMO makers claiming they're going to detect and ban bots. If my bot is a linux router with a usb hookup and a "keyboard" program running to feed "user interaction" to the game-running windows machine, they can't detect it. To them nothing is out of the ordinary. Sure, you have to decode the packet stream but that isn't /that/ hard. The information MMOs send isn't that different from what MUDs send, and people have been scripting those for years. The best the MMO maker can do is use hieuristics to watch for "bot-like" behavior but even that is questionable at best. (I'm sure I look like a bot by about 2 am if I'm up playing that late)

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    5. Re:It's all about the DRM. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This just copy protection at the OS level.
      Yeah, for now. By the time Vista actually ships, it'll probably be at the hardware level (via a Treacherous Computing chip).
      In the worst case there is always the ability of something like a mod chip to alter signals on the fly.
      Do you know what those signals are? They're public-key cryptography calculations. You don't know the key, so any kind of modchip is USELESS!
      I'd have faith if the hardware gurus can do it to a Xbox they can do it to a PC.
      The Xbox didn't have Treacherous Computing. The question is, have you heard of anyone cracking an Xbox 360? (Assuming, that is, that it does have Treacherous Computing -- I don't actually know.)
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:It's all about the DRM. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative
      You go on and on about a "treacherous computing" chip, but what possible downside is there to a TCG chip on my motherboard if I have the master key?
      There isn't a downside if you have the master key. However, read the following sentences very, very carefully:

      Treacherous Computing is explicitly designed to be secure against YOU, the user.

      YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE MASTER KEY, because it defeats the entire reason for the system's existence!
      What incentive does Dell have to to sell you a computer that's crippled this way?
      Nothing, aside from the fact that they won't be able to sell computers capable of running Vista otherwise. I could go on about conspiracy theories involving kickbacks from Microsoft and/or the RIAA and MPAA, but I won't since the first reason is reason enough.

      Ultimately, the entire push for Treacherous Computing stems from the RIAA and MPAA's desire to prevent Fair Us-- sorry, "piracy", as well as Microsoft's desire for totalitarian control over every Windows user's computer (and the ability to force subscription-based software models upon us).
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. From the nail-in-the-coffin department... by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All I can say is what's probably come to everyone else's mind: the banging sound of hammer against coffin.
    This will certainly quiet complaints about Windows' crashing (since many crashes are related to poorly written drivers, WHQL or not), but how did whomever thought this would be a good idea completely forget about the serious compatbility issues that this will raise?

    1. Re:From the nail-in-the-coffin department... by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Signing has nothing to do with driver quality. This will ensure that only officially-blessed drivers, regardless of quality will run on 64-bit Vista. DRM is the only conceivable reason for this move.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  5. Ooh lovely by JediTrainer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I applaud the idea of signed drivers and the like, this looks like a very clever way to shut out OSS developers. Heck - some of the smaller commercial outfits might even balk at having to spend that kind of money on the certificate.

    What pains me is knowing full well that this really won't necessarily increase the quality of the drivers, though. So they're signed. So what? All this might do is delay upgrades, if anything.

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    1. Re:Ooh lovely by Swamii · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heck - some of the smaller commercial outfits might even balk at having to spend that kind of money on the certificate.

      Yes, because $500 a year will easily put any corporation out of business.

      I, for one, think this is great. It now *forces* companies like Creative, NVidia, ATI, RealTek, and other big hardware vendors to make their drivers go through and pass Windows Hardware Quality Labs testing. I know that doesn't guarantee it 100% perfectly working driver, but in my experience it does mean generally better drivers, which in turn means a more stable system. That's a good thing for millions of consumers, coming at the cost of ... $500/year for corporations.

      I find it both ironic and hypocritical that the community here is constantly bashing corporate America; that is, until Microsoft makes certain corporations pay to make get their system-critical software tested and verified. Oh, then we're all sad for those poor corporations that have to pay $500 a year. Mercy me...

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
  6. You will be able to disable verification by aapold · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its in the white paper attatched. Is it perfect? no... but it won't absolutely prevent you from doing stuff. Here's the relevent text:


    How to Disable Signature Enforcement during Development
    During the early stages of development, developers can disable enforcement in Windows so that driver signing is not necessary. The following options are available for developers to disable digital signature enforcement temporarily so that Windows will load an unsigned driver.
    Attaching a kernel debugger. Attaching an active kernel debugger to the target computer disables the enforcement module in Windows Vista and allows the driver to load.
    Using the F8 option. An F8 boot option introduced with Windows Vista--"Disable Driver Signature Enforcement"--is available to disable the kernel-signing enforcement only for the current boot session. This setting does not persist across boot sessions.
    Setting the boot configuration. A boot configuration setting is available for prerelease builds that allows the suppression of the enforcement module in Windows to be persisted across boot sessions. Windows Vista includes a command-line tool, BCDedit, which can be used to set this option. To use BCDedit, the user must have Elevated User or Administrator privileges on the system. The most straightforward approach is to create a desktop shortcut to cmd.exe, and then right-click -> Run Elevated. The following shows an example of running BDCedit at the command prompt:

    // Disable enforcement - no signing checks
    Bcdedit.exe -set nointegritychecks ON

    // Enable enforcement - signing checks apply
    Bcdedit.exe -set nointegritychecks OFF


    // Disabling integrity check on an alternate OS
    // specified by a GUID for the system ID
    Bcdedit.exe -set {4518fd64-05f1-11da-b13e-00306e386aee} nointegritychecks ON

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  7. I'm not sure it'll even do that. by cduffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some software of that variety takes the approach of acting as an iSCSI device. So long as the OS has native iSCSI support, the application need not install its driver.

    I'm considerably more worried about the impact on projects like OpenVPN.

    1. Re:I'm not sure it'll even do that. by bfizzle · · Score: 2, Informative

      OpenVPN doesn't use kernel-mode drivers so this would not bother them one bit.

    2. Re:I'm not sure it'll even do that. by caseih · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually OpenVPN does require the tun/tap interface, which is supplied by another opensource driver that creates a virtual device. So it very much will be affected.

  8. No Open Source for You! by Irvu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's it no open source drivers on Windows Vista.

    It's not unlike the early "Analog Hole" legislation beinbg proposed by "Fritz" Hollings. The legislation attempted to link DRM and national security and, in one form, would have required a license to program a computer, possibly even certification of each binary prior to development.

    The question is, how long until a workaround is found? When developing code I don't like the idea of signing each interim binary before testing it that would just lengthen the whole cycle pointlessly. Sooner or later somebody will find a way around this but not without much frustration, perhaps a specially signed "Developer Edition" of the OS.

    No wonder there wasn't much fanfaire.

  9. STUPID by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does Microsoft even know the amount of drivers that ARE NOT signed?? This is stupid and it won't prevent anything. Is Microsoft going to look over thousands of drivers just to make sure they don't cause anything bad so they can put thier little WHQL seal and sign the blasted thing? What's to prevent someone from creating a hack that gets around this? Nothing. Why even try to do something like this? At least give users the option to screw up the system.

    --

    Gorkman

    1. Re:STUPID by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm thinking thst much what's behind this are the big PC OEMs, specifically Dell. Make it harder to run Vista on clone hardware, and OEM hardware sales go up. Dell is a whole lot bigger customer for M$ (primarily through enterprise contracts for hardware and OS) than the media content companies.

      I think this was first tried with XP -- back in the XP beta days, it became clear to me that XP was designed to be wholly compatible with Dell hardware, but with other hardware you just *hoped* it worked right.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  10. What about switching the root cert? by Halo- · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Okay, so MS requires all kernel drivers to be signed. That's ugly, but anything has that is signed has to be verified to the meaningful. The certificate used to verify the signatures is still stored in software at this time, right?

    So, what's to stop me from replacing the certificate which comes with Windows with my own, and then just resigning all the drivers?

    (Okay, the DMCA for one... grrr....)

    I don't think this if going to make Windows unhackable until hardware support for the certs is added. (which is pretty close, I think...)

    1. Re:What about switching the root cert? by kawika · · Score: 2, Interesting

      RTFWP! You not only have to sign everything, but you must get a Publisher Identification Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft for any kernel driver. Creating your own cert for local testing might be possible, but faking a Microsoft-authenticated PIC seems like a much bigger challenge.

      But reading through the paper, I don't see any particular restrictions on obtaining a PIC. It sounds like you just get your Verisign code signing cert and then do an automated process with Microsoft to get a PIC. So why couldn't one person buy a cert and then offer a (free) signing service for anyone's code? Obviously any sane corporation concerned about security wouldn't want to trust such a service, but the white paper doesn't seem to prohibit it.

  11. Not true... by DaHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if you actually read the MSDN page on this subject you will find that non administrators will be prevented from installing unsigned drivers... so not unlike many OSS OS's... you just need to SU or runas up to a root/Administrators account and install you drivers and then revert back to your normal privileges.

    It's just that easy!

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    1. Re:Not true... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Informative

      if you actually read the MSDN page on this subject you will find that non administrators will be prevented from installing unsigned drivers.

      This is not true. From the article, "Even users with administrator privileges cannot load unsigned kernel-mode code on x64-based systems." On 32 bit systems, only admins can load unsigned drivers. on 64-bit, no one can.

    2. Re:Not true... by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 2, Informative
      if you actually read the MSDN page on this subject you will find that non administrators will be prevented from installing unsigned drivers... so not unlike many OSS OS's... you just need to SU or runas up to a root/Administrators account and install you drivers and then revert back to your normal privileges.

      Which part of

      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.

      did you fail to understand? I'm guessing all of it.
    3. Re:Not true... by Randolpho · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should try reading *more* of the article. User-mode drivers (which most drivers *should* be) are still fair game. It's only kernel-mode that's at issue, and they're only really necessary for stringent timing requirements and legacy hardware.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    4. Re:Not true... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      User-mode drivers (which most drivers *should* be) are still fair game. It's only kernel-mode that's at issue, and they're only really necessary for stringent timing requirements and legacy hardware.

      Except for drivers for "CD-ROM, disk drivers, ATA/ATAPI controllers, mouse and other pointing devices, SCSI and RAID controllers, and system devices." as the article says. I'd say that is a good portion of the drivers, wouldn't you?

  12. Re:why are they calling it x64? by frankie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is this so difficult for so many people to figure out? Microsoft doesn't want to play favorites in the x86 war. They don't want to say either "x86-64" or "EMT64" and offend the other chipmaker, so they just call it generic "x64". It's obvious.

  13. There's always a loop hole by RingDev · · Score: 2, Informative

    As per TFA:

    "Included in this white paper: ...
    How to Disable Signature Enforcement during Development"

    We'll have to see what the WDK offers when it becomes available.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  14. a shot in the foot by rocketman768 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the beginning of microsoft's death. Anyone who's read "In the beginning was the command line" by Neal Stephenson should recognize these early signs. It's the same reason apple never got really big: they used proprietary hardware and therefore limited the amount of users that could use their OS. Therefore, prices stayed relatively high, and most users chose the more flexible PC platform. Microsoft is requiring their users to use (sort of) proprietary software and drivers. This will of course result in the fact that other (more flexible) OS's will become more popular. I'm just now getting to see the usefulness in Linux. I've used it off and on for the past 6 years, but now it's getting to the point where my machine is in Linux mode for a week at a time before I need to do some Maple or Matlab stuff. All I can say is that I will most definitely have a dual-boot system from now on, and that the more restrictive MS gets, the more I will stay in Linux to rip MY OWN FRIGGIN CD's and whatever else they consider potentially unlawful at MS. It's a self-stabilizing situation within the market, so don't worry too much about it. It's the beginning of a new era where Windows will not have the majority of the market.

  15. You CANNOT do this in the production version by kawika · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Read on, it says that the BCDEDIT option will be removed before final Vista code ships, perhaps as early as Vista RC1.

  16. It just has to be signed by kawika · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did I read the white paper wrong? It just said the driver had to be signed, not that it had to be WHQL. I don't think this particular requirement is being implemented for reliability reasons, but for accountability reasons. With a signed driver you know where it came from--that's it. No guarantee of quality or even security, but at least you know who to blame when the driver has problems.

  17. Driver Blacklisting? by Kormac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If all the drivers are signed with certs, does that mean I can maintain a black list of driver manufacturers that I don't want to install on my machine? For example, Sony's rootkit driver? :)

    Kormac

  18. 64bit ? by jeriqo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not on the 32bit version ?
    This doesn't make any sense to me.

    --
    Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
    1. Re:64bit ? by burndive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Backwards compatability.

      All drivers for 64-bit XP need to be rebuilt, since the 32-bit versions used with XP won't work in a 64-bit operating system. There are currently no 64-bit XP drivers to be backward-compatible with, so MS is setting the bar where it wants for all new drivers. They can't do the same with 32-bit because they have to be compatible with the unsigned 32-bit drivers already on the market for XP.

      64-bit is the future of desktop computing, and MS doesn't want have to support unsigned drivers in future versions of Windows.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
  19. Good. by Zebra_X · · Score: 2

    what is fantastic about this is that it will prevent nafarious entities from installing low level code or drivers. it will also create a chain of accountability for the software running on users machines.

    admittedly, five hundred dollars isn't a great deal - but as an end user i'd rather know where my software is coming from.

    what's amusing about this is that when windows 2000 introduced code signing, a lot of people got upset saying that msft would use it as a way to control who could develop software for windows. fortunately, signing has not been used as an anti-competitive tool, rather it's now being used to protect us from malware. /clap

  20. And doing so would be COMPLETELY USELESS by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because if anyone wants to actually excercise their rights under any open source license (i.e. wants to modify the software for any reason), the key won't work!!

    I don't know why I keep having repeat myself to get people to understand this; it's an obvious and logical consequence of signed software:

    If you try to modify signed software, it's not signed anymore. In other words, ALL Free Software WILL NOT WORK if signing is required!!

    There are NO exceptions to this.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  21. Re:Its okay by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You do realize that to hack the Treacherous Computing system, you need either a multi-million dollar laboratory to disassemble the chip and read the key directly from the circuits, or a spy to steal the master key directly from Microsoft (or Verisign or whoever), right?

    Oh, and by the way: once you go to all this trouble to get the key, they can just use Remote Attestation to disable it (along with the hardware itself).

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  22. You're neglecting one important fact... by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Since only commercial vendors can be licensed, any garage developer (Messers Hewlett and Packard, for example) can build their own hardware but NOT be licensed to produce a driver for it. Only a pre-existing commercial vendor can do that, and most won't unless you pay them.


    This not only means that you can't have third-party drivers, it ALSO means you can't have 1st party drivers from start-ups. It effectively prohibits anyone new from entering the hardware arena.


    But there's more! Although Microsoft's license is "free", they aren't necessarily going to give a license to everyone. Thus, they can effectively ban technology they don't like. Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD is going to be the shortest battle on record, if all it will take is for Microsoft to prohibit rival systems running on "their" desktops.


    There is a way round the problem, but it puts you at risk from the DMCA as (by definition) it is circumventing security technology. By having a hypervisor-like OS running at the lowest level, and then having Vista run on top of that, you can make any piece of physical hardware look like any other piece of hardware that you like. Nothing Vista can do about it, as it can't see the hardware directly, all it can see is the results of pushing data of one type in one direction, then pulling data of another type in the opposite direction.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:You're neglecting one important fact... by Tune · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >There is a way round the problem, but it puts you at risk from the DMCA as (by definition) it is circumventing security technology. By having a hypervisor-like OS running at the lowest level, and then having Vista run on top of that, you can make any piece of physical hardware look like any other piece of hardware that you like. Nothing Vista can do about it, as it can't see the hardware directly, all it can see is the results of pushing data of one type in one direction, then pulling data of another type in the opposite direction.

      Unfortunately, even that won't work once trusted computing takes over. Trusted hardware protects trusted firmware which in turn protects a trusted OS. IMHO, that's what MS is gambling at.

  23. Old story by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Microsoft has been saying this for many years now (XP, Win2K at least). As each release date nears, and the number of signed drivers is pitifully small, they drop the requirement.

    There will be some way of loading unsigned drivers. If not, it will be basically impossible to write a driver - since there will be no way of loading it for debug/test. (Unless you really want to go through the pain of signing every single debug build you make). My bet is there will be some "secret" registry key turned on by the DDK - which will stay secret for about an hour. After that, everyone will be able to load unsigned drivers.

  24. The end of Installable File Systems? by yeremein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Currently it's possible to read/write ext3 volumes from Windows XP using an installable file system (IFS) driver.

    Will this be a thing of the past after Longhorn ships?

  25. Re:To be honest... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful
    something that someone else produced and can damn well provide to you under whatever restrictions they please because *they created it, and you didn't*
    No, THIS it what's "divorced from reality!"

    Nowhere in US copyright law does it say anything remotely like this -- no matter how much the publishers wish it did. The real reality is that ideas are not property, except in the sense that they belong to the culture as a whole. The foundation of copyright law is based on a social contract designed to promote the general welfare (i.e. Common Good), not to give creators and/or publishers any kind of entitlement! That's why copyright expires, if you couldn't figure it out before. Copyright is actually a lease -- artists lease a monopoly from the government for a period of time (originally 14 years), and make payment in the form of the creative work itself.
    if a content owner tells you that you can only watch it while standing naked in your living room bouncing on one foot with half your nutsack shaved, thats their business.
    That's completely and utterly false -- the courts have struck down many less insane restrictions (by the way, did you ever hear of Betamax?).

    Here's the bottom line: There's no such thing as a "content owner," what you call "media" is actually our culture (which everyone has a right to experience), and the social contract whereby we (as citizens) allow artists to enjoy monopoly status is revokable by the people, if the artists fail to hold up their end of the bargain. Although many don't agree with me yet, I believe this has already happened.
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  26. Re:Generic wrapper driver. by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Drivers aren't the biggest security issue - as incompleted TCP handshakes were not.

    This is for Disney's "security" - not ours. Like the "USA Patriot" act: the target of the restriction is the average person, not the "evildoer".

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  27. The bar for becoming a "commercial entity" is low by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
    and [...] is only available to commercial entities
    It takes very little to become a commercial entity. You don't have to incorporate to have a sole proprietorship or partnership. If you actually sell anything taxable, you have to get tax licenses from your city, county, or state, which is generally either free or very inexpensive. Depending on your locality, you might need a business license, which usually costs under $100 per year. If you do business under your own name (e.g. "Joe Thompson Company", "Thompson Furniture", etc.), you don't need to even file a ficticious name statement, though doing so isn't very expensive and usually lasts for five years.
  28. RTFA by catahoula10 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For those that cannot or did not RTFA, here is a quote from the article that clearly states this topic is not just about DRIVERS:

    "Digital signatures allow the administrator or end user who is installing Windows-based software to know whether a legitimate publisher has provided the software package."

    Nuff said

    :-) ------

    --
    This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
    Catahoula!
  29. licenses for OSS by rocketman768 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, about the whole $500 deal in order to get your drivers signed...why couldn't the GNU community or someone buy one. Then, when someone comes out with some nice piece of code submit it to the owners. Then, he or she could get it signed and distribute the signed code? Or is that somewhere on page 17623875 of the EULA?

  30. Chill People by logicnazi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It isn't clear yet that they are trying to *securely* prevent loading unsigned drivers into the kernel. There might just be a config setting or other toggle that hackish users can flip to load unsigned code into the kernel.

    In fact it would seem they would have to have such a toggle. Otherwise how are even commercial software companies supposed to develop this code? Not only would it be a pain to sign the driver every time you are testing the latest code changes it would require giving access to the signing keys to whoever compiles a kernel extension.

    As an aside this scheme seems totally useless for the proposed purpose. The makers of malware are just going to steal a legitamate software developers secret key and sign their code with that. MS won't be able to anything because tons of people will be mad if windows update breaks their computer. However, I don't know whether to credit this to stupidity or malicousness (just want to make it difficult for normal people to use OSS kernel level code).

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too: