[FYI] "Signed Code Regime" for MS Windows XP?

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

[Obwohl diese Sache zunaechst seht technisch klingt, ist sie doch von 
allergroesster Brisanz. Wenn MS ein "Mandatory Signed Code Regime" 
einfuehrt, laeuft bei _allen_ Windows XP-Usern _nur_ noch Code, der 
von MS signiert ist. Die Konformitaet der Treiber mit dem XP 
Treibermodell ist aber IMHO nur vorgeschoben. In Wahrheit geht es um 
die Kontrolle der gesamten Softwarefunktionalitaet. Wenn 
beispielsweise MS beschliessen sollte, dass XP (Teil-)Funktionen 
eines DRMS beinhaltet, um ein lukratives Vermarktungs-Buendnis fuer 
proprietaere Datenformate mit Hollywood machen zu koennen und um MP3 
und DivX-Nachbauten an der technologischen Basis bekaempfen zu 
koennen, gibt es keine Moeglichkeiten mehr, von dieser Policy 
abweichende Software zu schreiben, die unter XP laeuft.      ---AHH]  

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19114.html

------------------------------ CUT --------------------------------

The truth about Redmond's WinXP signed driver plans  

By: John Lettice  

Posted: 22/05/2001 at 09:01 GMT  

[...]

The warnings you get seem to be on a graduated scale, but as yet The 
Register hasn't felt impelled to try to figure out what the rules 
are. We have however got the impression that matters connected with 
modems and USB seem to prompt particularly shrill ones, as well they 
might.  

Naturally, as we've said here before, many users are going to be a 
bit worried by such warnings, which will mean hardware vendors will 
get griped at about getting their drivers 'up to snuff,' and 
Microsoft will have a 'told you so, contact your hardware vendor' get-
out in cases where XP does break after unsigned drivers are 
installed. As we've also said here before, this will pressure 
hardware vendors to support Microsoft's signed driver regime, and 
will ultimately place even more power in Microsoft's hands. But it's 
not compulsory, and Redmond probably doesn't think there's any need 
for it to be.  

As for apps, it's definitely not "unclear whether XP apps will need 
to be signed." Reference to a November piece in, er, Smart Partner 
(itself a follow-up to a slightly earlier piece in El Reg, reveals 
that XP will include the option to block all unsigned code. And in a 
presentation in Seattle earlier this year The Register distinctly 
heard senior Microsoft reps say that while they were extremely keen 
on digital signatures for apps, they realised it would be a highly 
sensitive area, so they were going ot be real careful.  

As yet, Microsoft has not set a default to warn against installing 
unsigned apps, but even it it goes that far - which it quite probably 
won't, given the howls it would generate from ISVs - it would be 
politically impossible to set the default to block, at least in this 
rev of Windows. The pressures that will drive ISVs towards a signed 
regime are however the same as they are for signed drivers, and no 
doubt somewhere within Fort Redmond there are people mulling over 
possible opportunities for 'deflectors on full' editions.  

Super-safe, super-crashproof corporate editions? The corps will like 
signed regimes anyway, because they stop users installing crud. 
Unbreakable, idiot-proof appliance editions for the home? Could 
happen - but Redmond's planners are too sophisticated (no, really...) 
to just slam down the shutters now, in one go.  

Allchin's letter does however say something interesting that should 
be made more of. He correctly states that the default is set to warn, 
and that "we have been encouraged by computer manufacturers to change 
the default to block, but we are staying with warn. The warning 
message you get is scary if you are trying to load an unsigned driver 
and rightly so, in my view."  

Undoubtedly, we are being somewhat economical with l'actualite here. 
What we presume is really happening is that Microsoft has been busily 
doing the rounds of the hardware manufacturers, extolling the virtues 
of signed driver regimes. As such regimes - operating correctly - 
will involve hardware manufacturers working closely with Microsoft to 
make sure their drivers work, and that Microsoft says they work, 
there would seem to be considerable upsides for PC manufacturers 
here.  

They hate getting huge numbers of tech support calls, it costs them 
when Microsoft accidentally breaks things and then they've got to 
figure out why and placate their customers - on a level playing 
field, signed drivers could be a good thing for them. But it's not 
exactly the case that it's the evil hardware manufacturers who want 
to lock everything down, and plucky Microsoft that's defending 
liberty.  

Get real, Jim. If they're lobbying for block all unsigned as the 
default, it's because that's precisely what you've effectively been 
encouraging them to lobby for. No doubt you'll be finding that your 
enterprise customers will be demanding that same default for drivers, 
and swiftly afterwards for apps, RSN.  

So what's wrong with signed regimes anyway? Isn't it a good idea to 
have entirely approved systems where all of the software is 
guaranteed to work, and not to break things? In principle, nothing, 
and in principle it'd be great to have a big pile of all the stuff 
you'd ever need easily and instantly available in a giant store on 
the Windows Update site. But as we've said before, the problem lies 
in the nature of the custodian - It's the storekeeper's funny eyes. ® 
 

------------------------------ CUT --------------------------------