Gurra Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Its a really f**ing feature :( There is a way to disable it it .. but how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 5, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 5, 2007 Huh? What kind of unsigned kernel driver are you trying to install??? Are you a developer or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurra Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 Huh? What kind of unsigned kernel driver are you trying to install??? Are you a developer or something? How does it matter?, i want to choose what driver i use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 5, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 5, 2007 For what? 99.9% of drivers are completely unaffected by that change. Have you actually encountered an unsigned driver? Or are you just looking to disable the requirement for the heck of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baskingridge Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 He's trying to install that new Vista activation crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 5, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well that's just not cool at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevets Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) I can't find it on regular 32 vista either... hmm what's with peeps jumping to conclusions? Edited March 5, 2007 by nevets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurra Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well that's just not cool at all. Come on... there lots of hardware that dont have signed drivers... and i paid for my copy of Vista. So i not need your sh**ty comments :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurra Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 Found it: // Disable enforcement ? no signing checks Bcdedit.exe ?set nointegritychecks ON // Enable enforcement ? signing checks apply Bcdedit.exe ?set nointegritychecks OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 5, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 5, 2007 Come on... there lots of hardware that dont have signed drivers... and i paid for my copy of Vista. So i not need your sh**ty comments :( Please name one piece of hardware that has unsigned kernel-mode drivers. I can't think of a single one. The only thing I've ever heard of being affected by this were Joe's home-made keyboard filter (my friend uses a self-coded one for switching between QUERY and DVORAK mapping on the fly), or keyloggers. It's not like it affects display drivers or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus124 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 bcdedit.exe -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS This disables driver signing permanently. Pay no attention to the double "D", it is there intenionally as it is needed for the switch to work correctly. ;) I use this switch for my unsigned "Conexant AC-Link Audio/ATI Integrated Digital Audio" driver, the only unsigned driver on my Vista x64 installation and it will stay this way until ATI releases a signed one. =( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrian Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I've encountered at least 3 programs that require that some sort of virtual device is installed, such as daemon tools and blindwrite. In most cases you can simply wait until they release a newer version with signed drivers, but sometimes they don't and might possibly never update it. I disabled it, too, just because it's slightly annoying. Not nearly as annoying as UAC, though, which is the first thing I disable when I install Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthMode Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yea, Acronis Disk Director Suite installs an unsigned driver. Really annoying when I had it installed to have to hit F8 every time I started my computer or rebooted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 that fact there isn't an easier way to disable it is just ridiculous, that's why i got the 32 bit version of vista instead of the 64. I'll ask microsoft to send my my 64 bit copy when its worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 6, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 6, 2007 that fact there isn't an easier way to disable it is just ridiculous, that's why i got the 32 bit version of vista instead of the 64. I'll ask microsoft to send my my 64 bit copy when its worth it. Huh? You should never be installing unsigned code into kernel mode. Not ever. This is how rootkits happen. Besides, kernel-mode drivers are bad enough to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1p3 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Brandon Live, you usually have some of the best posts on this forum but this is not one of them. There are valid reasons for disabling driver signing enforcement. I had to install a driver for my Hauppauge PVR-1300 and because Hauppauge hasn't released a signed driver for that card yet I had to turn it off to get a modified Conexant driver to load. It may not be a good solution in the long run but until more vendors start supplying signed drivers its the only way to get our hardware to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrian Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 He's just being defensive, like Brad does in the Stardock-bashing threads. I'd really be surprised if he reacted differently. Rootkits happen when you're dumb enough to stick that Sony CD into your drive. :laugh: Intelligent computing goes a lot further in preventing disaster than MS' new "security" features. They're there for the average Joe who just bought a Dell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger.Girl Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Intelligent computing goes a lot further in preventing disaster than MS' new "security" features. They're there for the average Joe who just bought a Dell. Hey now! I just bought a Dell because of the interest free payments and I already have a line of credit with them. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andareed Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 He's just being defensive, like Brad does in the Stardock-bashing threads. I'd really be surprised if he reacted differently.Rootkits happen when you're dumb enough to stick that Sony CD into your drive. :laugh: Intelligent computing goes a lot further in preventing disaster than MS' new "security" features. They're there for the average Joe who just bought a Dell. And unfortunately Sony, Starforce, and other "bad" drivers are likely to be signed anyway, so they're still likely to get by Kernel Signing (and maybe PatchGuard). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted March 6, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 6, 2007 PatchGuard raises the bar significantly for achieving any kind of "rootkit" on Vista. I had to install a driver for my Hauppauge PVR-1300 and because Hauppauge hasn't released a signed driver for that card yet I had to turn it off to get a modified Conexant driver to load. That's a kernel-mode driver? I am surprised they don't have a 64-bit driver for that, since they do for the 1600 and other cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1p3 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 PatchGuard raises the bar significantly for achieving any kind of "rootkit" on Vista.That's a kernel-mode driver? I am surprised they don't have a 64-bit driver for that, since they do for the 1600 and other cards. Appears they are. I had to turn it off to get it working at least. They only have 64bit vista drivers for WinTV-PVR-150/500, WinTV-PVR-USB2 model 24XXX, WinTV-HVR-1100 and WinTV-HVR-1600 at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andareed Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 PatchGuard raises the bar significantly for achieving any kind of "rootkit" on Vista. It's not hard to disable patchguard; pretty much anyone capable of writing a kernel-mode rootkit is going to be able to figure out how to disable patchguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero Ultimate Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's not hard to disable patchguard; pretty much anyone capable of writing a kernel-mode rootkit is going to be able to figure out how to disable patchguard. Exactly. It's just one of the pseudo-security features in Vista that give you only a false sense of security if you rely on them exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-Flowers Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I know that not everyone is signing their drivers since the driver for my new Linksys WMP54G wireless network card is not signed. Personally, as the owner of my computer, I wish that I had the option of personally signing or allowing unsigned drivers on an individual basis. It seems to me that you shouldn't have to turn the whole system off just to install one driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenomorph Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 lets see ... TV card drivers, unsigned. monitor driver, unsigned video card drivers, unsigned PCI wifi card drivers, unsigned USB wifi drivers, unsigned Splitcam driver, unsigned yup, i have a LOT of unsigned drivers. ANY driver you alter becomes unsigned. ANY driver you make will be unsigned. as far as i know, it costs $$$ to get drivers signed. more $$$ than most people would be willing to spend. a SIGNED driver offers zero improvement over a non signed driver. things like blocking unsigned drivers may stop some "bad" stuff from being installed. if you know what you are installing, its silly for the OS to block it because the author/modifier didn't pay Microsoft money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts