Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jan 2006 22:42 UTC, submitted by PlatformAgnostic
Windows "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."
Thread beginning with comment 88300
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, no, no
by tomcat on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 03:45 UTC
Member since:

Microsoft currently has a driver certification program in place that evaluates drivers before they get signed. The vast number of problems with shitty drivers under XP are caused by unsigned drivers that don't go through any kind of certification.

Microsoft is taking a step here with x64 of not only requiring certification but making sure that kernel mode drivers get signed. This is definitely a GOOD THING. It means that there will be a significantly reduced chance that crappy drivers will take down the OS.

Remember, folks. A lot of you complain about MS when their stability sucks. Then, when MS tries to do something about it, you also complain. That's simply not fairor reasonable. I applaud them here. They're finally doing something good.

As for somebody talking about MS getting sued, that's nonsense. It isn't a problem for MS to require a digital signature, as long as it applies that standard equally to ALL developers. It's bogus to say that people doing kernel mode development for x64 aren't going to be in a position to get a digital signature. Because they have to go through MS's driver certification process, anyway. So they've already got plenty of skin in the game.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No, no, no
by CrLf on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 04:19 in reply to "No, no, no"
CrLf Member since:

"Microsoft is taking a step here with x64 of not only requiring certification but making sure that kernel mode drivers get signed."

You are just making that up... Only signing will be required, there is nothing mentioning certification anywhere.

One can only assume certification will keep being optional, and that makes sense, since certification introduces a significant delay in the release process (ever noticed how, for instance, how nvidia seems to alternate between releasing certified and non-certified drivers for their chips?) as well as a burden on Microsoft. Certification means testing, and they can't test every driver that the vendors throw at them and do it quickly at the same time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No, no, no
by tomcat on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 05:35 in reply to "RE: No, no, no"
tomcat Member since:

Do some research on WHQL. I don't have time to educate you.

Reply Parent Score: 1