Digitally signed drivers required under Vista 64-bit?

K

Kris

Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
618
Why is everyone saying Vista 64-bit won't install unsigned drivers? I installed the latest beta driver from nvidia and Vista warned that it was unsigned but gave me an option to install anyway.

Am I missing something/misinterpretting this or was this only the case in the Beta/RC verisons of Vista and everyone keeps bringing it up (kind of like requiring UAC for changing backgrounds; people still say Vista does it)?
 
Short answer: The effects of FUD.

Long answer: The truth is, it was never stated on any official documents that Vista wouldn't accept unsigned drivers. The real mechanism is how Vista handles such drivers, in that the permission level changes, but that's such a 'behind the scenes' object that some ppl though it cooler to just say, "NOEZ, the sky is falling!". ;)
 
Well, you're mixing up issues.

You can still install drivers without any problem if they are signed but not WHQL. It will come up with a warning but you can easily ignore this warning and install them anyway. For example, the Nvidia Beta drivers.

It will not install drivers which are not signed, period. You can, if really desperate, install drivers and then press F8 on every boot to disable driver signing enforcement.

So it's not entirely FUD. It's not the end of the world, but it also is a pain in the ass. Until recently there were no signed 3Ware drivers for the 8000 or 7000 series of cards in Vista, meaning you would have to press F8 on every boot if you were running x64. Same situation for a large number of USB devices, (Eg. Epson Printers). Anyone who tells you all x64 Vista drivers must be WHQL signed is spreading FUD. But "everyone" who keeps saying you need signed drivers are telling the truth.
 
I'm sorry Hvatum, are you actually currently or have you been using x64 Vista? Cause I am, and have been since before launch. I've used the packaged video card drivers, the WHQL, the beta drivers and drivers from the genius minds @ TweaksRus, all work fine and I'm currently using/testing unsigned drivers as I type this on x64 Vista Ultimate..

The spewing rhetoric that Vista won't accept unsigned drivers _IS_ FUD. Rather, it was sorta a beta thing and those who 'nay say' will try to attach it to the launch version. I would suggest you read into the middle letter of that acronym.


Taken from Driver Signing Requirements for Windows
• Administrator privilege is required to install unsigned kernel-mode components. This includes device drivers, filter drivers, services, and so on.

Also read: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905073.aspx
 
How do you know that your 64-bit drivers are unsigned? I can use a VeriSign account to sign a driver and still have Vista give me a message that the driver is unsigned. Signing by the driver provider and signing by Microsoft are not neccessarily the same thing.

The driver signing requirement for kernel mode device drivers has been confusing for many Vista users.
 
I have Vista64 and am running XP64 audio drivers for my onboard sound. Works fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top