Drivers on Windows Vista x64 will require to be signed

[Amotea]

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.

What this means for Windows Vista.
-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.

What this means for software publishers. For vendors who publish kernel-mode software, this policy has the following effects:
For any kernel-mode component that is not already signed, publishers must obtain and use a PIC to sign all 64-bit kernel-mode software that will run on x64-based systems running Windows Vista. This includes kernel-mode services software.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bit/kmsigning.mspx

So is this gonna stop daemon tools from running on Vista x64? Afterall, it does need some sort of driver to emulate cd/dvd-rom drives. And I don't think Microsoft is going to sign drivers that allow images to be mounted, not to mention the costs of getting a certificate for signing.

EDIT: sorry for submitting this twice, I thought something went wrong when posting, but I didn't notice this board is moderated.

[LooDos]

so thats kinda shitty. but i think there will be a workaround like in all M$ based stuff
and what about the x86 Vista?! will it be the same?

PS: Vista is shit. i dont think im gonna buy it...

[ghost_zero]

@LooDos:

That is the strange thing... seems to be for x64 only... Although I so don't see the sense behind it

@all:
There is something like this thread at the customer forum too...

A QUOTE from there:

To build on what mwb1100 said, the reason MS is doing this is to identify kernel-mode code with an actual commercial entity. This way they can stop many rootkits from being installed and also prevent their (and others) DRM from being hacked. Basically, you need to be a financially stable, commercial entity to qualify. I'm reasonably certain that we would qualify.

[Mystique]

Won´t work because everybody has rights to use what he want on his own maschine. Windows is only the Portal for it.

i dont think that will affect the Next generations of Windows Family.

[LooDos]

what do u mean mystique?! dt4 or future releases wont work on vista x64?

[Mystique]

no, i mean that this singed driver shit will no affect windows because everybody has the right to use what he wants on his maschine and when i want to use a unsigned driver then i will do, without permission of Microsoft.

[Amotea]

You'd still have to bypass the protection though...

[LooDos]

yeah. u wont be able to use unsigned drivers like in Win XP. u have to use the signed ones...
SAD but TRUE

[Kilermen]

a new computer,a new windows.the futere is coming lady's en gentilmen,it's the futere.
But in the computerlangue,it's sucks

[ghost_zero]

no, i mean that this singed driver shit will no affect windows because everybody has the right to use what he wants on his maschine and when i want to use a unsigned driver then i will do, without permission of Microsoft.

If the system does not allow you to install an unsigned driver (which is what Microsoft currently wants to implement in Windows Vista x64 (64Bit)) you cannot install an unsigned driver (if you don't deactivate this mechanism somehow - e.g. by replacing some Windows files, a.s.o. - although I don't think that this is then completely legal anymore)...

[LooDos]

it might be legal but some kind of dangerous if u repplace the wrong files

[ghost_zero]

depends on the country if it is legal
But it indeed is dangerous but if developers get - let's say a patch or something like this - to let unsigned drivers load, I believe that people will be able to get this program from somewhere over the internet then too...

[LocutusofBorg]

it is for sure legal. At least legal in every country I know,
as you are owner of the machine. It is also not a "protection"
in the meaning of copyright, moreover a protection to prevent
malicious programs to install "rootkits". So here is no such thing
as DMCA violation, not even close to it.

On the long run, it could produce some trouble for m$.
We should wait and see how the final build will look like, the
more restrictions they implement (especially if they are total
nonsense) the more the new vista will sell much lower and
people stay as long as it gets on XP.

Problems could be exist for the people that create possibilities
to bypass that check, but the "consumer" has every right to
modify his machine, this include the OS, too.

[ghost_zero]

Well ok... I am not sure with the legal things in this case (I mean if you need to modify binary data like .dlls a.s.o. - although I don't know if this would be needed to bypass this protection)...

So probably you are right and that is allowed...

but the "consumer" has every right to
modify his machine, this include the OS, too.

At least currently
Who knows... this might change in the future - I mean if I look at the current laws, we are on the best way to it...

[itom]

I just come back from Vista RD (Rapid Deployment) meeting in seattle.

The following was about Windows Domains (Active Directory) but maybe it could apply to standalone computer :

They told us it would be possible to administrator to sign drivers, and can configure group policy to allow users to install signed drivers without requiring special permissions.

So maybe we will get a tool to sign our drivers

Wait & See