Re: Non-WHQL signed driver accepted by Vista but not XP. Why?
- From: Ray Trent <rat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:33:25 -0800
There used to be a WHQL program for signing unclassified devices in XP. Nowadays, that role is taken over by DQS, which can sign any driver, regardless of class.
However, I don't know off the top of my head whether or not the signatures apply to XP or not. That should be easy to determine with a quick search, though.
Peter Jaquiery wrote:
You mix 2 kinds of signing: a) WHQL signing and b) Authenticode signing.
Sorry, I didn't make it clear that our driver is not a "System-Supplied
Device Setup Class" driver so it can not be WHQL signed. However I was led to
understand that a custom class driver could be Authenticode signed and would
then install without bringing up the add new hardware wizard on XP.
I would expect at the very least that the XP device manager would show the
driver as signed. Note that Vista recognizes the driver as signed during the
install process and does show the driver as signed in its device manager.
--
Ray
.
- References:
- Re: Non-WHQL signed driver accepted by Vista but not XP. Why?
- From: Maxim S. Shatskih
- Re: Non-WHQL signed driver accepted by Vista but not XP. Why?
- Prev by Date: Re: Vista, IM driver, OID_GEN_NETWORK_LAYER_ADDRESSES and IPv6 address
- Next by Date: Re: Non-WHQL signed driver accepted by Vista but not XP. Why?
- Previous by thread: Re: Non-WHQL signed driver accepted by Vista but not XP. Why?
- Next by thread: Re: Non-WHQL signed driver accepted by Vista but not XP. Why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
