Disabling signed driver enforcment in Vista x64 final

Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by Jadawin, Feb 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jadawin

    Jadawin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    No, I'm not asking, how to... I'm telling you how to :)

    In a shell with admin rights, enter:

    bcdedit -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS

    and yes, it's DD... no typo. Reboot and enjoy.
     
  2. Josh_B

    Josh_B [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,954
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    What? Don't you know Microsoft knows what's best for you? How dare you try to think for yourself!
     
  3. Enigma

    Enigma Gawd

    Messages:
    696
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    awesome information this is what was keeping me from installing X64 vista!
     
  4. pxc

    pxc [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    33,115
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2000
    I'd rather see if a driver is signed or not. I can click through already.

    Was there any particular reason for you to turn it off?
     
  5. Jadawin

    Jadawin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Yes, things like coretemp, cpu-z, rmclock etc. etc. won't work properly otherwise. When they have signed drivers, I probably will change back. But on the other hand, on 32bit Vista this isn't enforced, so why on 64bit?
     
  6. djnes

    djnes [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,577
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2000
    Because Vista64 is meant to be more secure. So, if you feel the need to disable this feature, why didn't you just get Vista32 in the first place? You've essentially just paid for a steak with crab imperial on top, and then promptly scraped the crab imperial off.
     
  7. Catweazle

    Catweazle 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Excellent comment.

    There are a lot of people disabling Vista restrictions at present under the mistaken belief that doing so somehow makes them 'hardkore' or perhaps 'power users'.
    It doesn't do that. Disabling stuff like this is a rather silly knee-jerk, and that's about all.

    The presence of these features doesn't cause harm. Being annoyed by them is simply a weakness of character. Their presence may well at some stage alert you to an unexpected or unnoticed intrusion you'd prefer to avoid. A skilled and capable user will learn to manage these features to ensure they have minimal impact. A less skilled and capable user will simply find a tweak which excises them from the system.
     
  8. Jadawin

    Jadawin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Nah, it's a crap comment. I've got 4GB of RAM. 'nough said.

    And that must be the most ridiculous thing I ever read on any discussionboard since the early 90s... thanks, I needed a good laugh today and that was enough for a whole week.
     
  9. Oooska

    Oooska Gawd

    Messages:
    862
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    A ton of freeware out there depends on unsigned drivers. Getting drivers signed is not free (in fact, it costs quite a fair amount of money). As such, without an easy, legitimate work around, you're going to see a lot of great and useful programs disappear due to this "feature". Since you seem to know exactly how to bypass this feature legitimately, mind telling the rest of us how to get CPU-Z, Speedfan, and other programs that depend on unsigned drivers to work without disabling this "feature"?
     
  10. Catweazle

    Catweazle 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Per session disabling is quite simple for stuff which is appropriate for a testbed environment. The freeware tools which are basically constant comanions all have suitable versions under development, and if there's a problem involved with financing the signed driver then fans of those programs are making donations to assist the authors. If currently popular tools disappear it won't be because Vista has enhanced security by forcing signed kernel mode drivers. It'll be because either the authors are uunable to adapt to a changed environment or because the users are unwilling to support the product they use.

    Sorry. I have no sympathy for your line of argument.
     
  11. suprcharg

    suprcharg n00b

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    I typed that command into a dos prompt and it tells me "The boot configuration data store could not be opened. Access is denied" I am logged in as administrator. Any thoughts?
     
  12. Archer75

    Archer75 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,432
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    I have Vista ultimate 64 and I installed XP64 drivers on it for my onboard sound. I don't know if they were signed or not but it worked.
     
  13. RealCyberGhost

    RealCyberGhost n00b

    Messages:
    5
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Awesome, you are my hero.

    greetz
     
  14. RealCyberGhost

    RealCyberGhost n00b

    Messages:
    5
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    We don't need sympathy from you lol
     
  15. RealCyberGhost

    RealCyberGhost n00b

    Messages:
    5
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Aye 4GB of RAM or 8GB of RAM and a couple if video cards in SLI and there is NO CHOICE but to go for Vista 64.

    But I guess they will tell you next that you don't need 4GB of RAM or SLI :p

    Greetz
     
  16. l3ender

    l3ender [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,364
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    I probably won't be using it, but it's good to know. Thanks.
     
  17. Josh_B

    Josh_B [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,954
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    I don't need MS to regulate my drivers, thanks.

    There are plenty of times we need to run beta or open-source drivers, hence my disdain for driver signing requirements. It's fine if MS would very much like to minimize risk to non-admin-level users, but even then, shouldn't it be up to knowledgeable folks to decide which drivers to use? GM doesn't put a sensor in their cars that stops the ICE from running if someone uses Shell instead of Esso gas, (or even cheap-ass Pioneer gas) so why should MS?

    I have HAD TO install drivers that weren't signed for Creative sound cards, ATI video cards, modems for which there was no support except BETA drivers from lazy and untalented manufacturers, etc, etc. I am sure there are still some manufacturers who do not have WHQL-signed drivers out there. Additionally, the Creative drivers for SB Live! cards in Vista are crap, and it would've been nice if I could install the open-source drivers for my brother's PC. (I believe the open source drivers may have superior features for what he needs.)

    In essence, why does MS have to be such a bunch of twits about this? I'll tell you why - to reduce their support costs! Fewer calls to their support lines for crashes related to non-WHQL drivers... :mad:
     
  18. Mav451

    Mav451 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,434
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    How do you go about doing this "per session"?
     
  19. Violator

    Violator Gawd

    Messages:
    706
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Well you can press F8 at startup and select 'disable driver signing'. I'm also pretty sure the command that kicked off this thread no longer works since SP1 has been deployed.
     
  20. JRS

    JRS Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    IMHO, if MS is going to enforce driving signing, they need to get their act together.

    I can't begin to account for the time I lost because Vista x64/w SP1 kept telling me it wouldn't load the ICH10R drivers because they weren't signed. :mad:
     
  21. Josh_B

    Josh_B [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,954
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    Unfortunately that has been my experience post-SP1.:mad:
     
  22. Josh_B

    Josh_B [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,954
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    We buy Vista x64 because we want the ability to use the extra SSE registers on our processors and to use more than 3GB of RAM effectively. We do not, however, buy Vista x64 to be encumbered by numerous superfluous warnings about security. Who are these warnings and restrictions designed for? Ironically, these warnings are lost on noob users anyways given that they will inherently click 'yes' to anything if they believe it will get them the end result they desire. (Who hasn't seen spyware riddled PCs with "Awesome backgrounds!")

    MS is merely disabling the use of unsigned drivers to reduce the number of support calls they receive. I am sure there are a huge number of unsophisticated PC users who shout at MS when their XP-based PC complete with beta-0 drivers crashes and explodes into flames. What is the other choice? Pull a Sony and tell users to buy new hardware? Unfortunately since MS has chosen not to try and do the 'heavy lifiting' with regard to this issue, users are left to suffer with unsupported devices. Microsoft should be getting on the Nvidias, ATIs, VIAs, Logitechs, and Creatives of the hardware ecosystem to get their asses in gear to produce higher-quality drivers - not punishing the users. How long did we wait for 64-bit Creative drivers again? Was it a 'big surprise' to Creative that 64-bit windows was coming?

    MS loves to tout Vista as the 'most secure' desktop OS out there. That said, one of the goals of security is availability. (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/solutionaccelerators/cits/mo/smf/smfsecad.mspx) Therefore, if I can't use my PC because my discombobulator device has only unsigned drivers, then security has failed.
     
  23. spotter

    spotter [H]Lite

    Messages:
    95
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    there are utilities that select the disable driver signing on each boot, as well as enabling you to run the bcdedit command each time the machine boots. Either way, it makes the change fairly permanent, even with sp1.

    But I agree, it's really annoying that a user can't change it themselves.
     
  24. Kangg

    Kangg Ad Blocker - Banned

    Messages:
    1,996
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    You also did not answer the mans question either. Any chance you are a politician ?
     
  25. odoe

    odoe Madministrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    This thread is like a year old and you guys are responding to old posts and in some case to posters that are not even here anymore.

    Please do not necropost (bump waaaaay old threads for no good reason).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.