Prev: WDDM Driver Vidpn implementation.
Next: Printer driver and DEVMODE confusion
From: Fabi on 9 Dec 2009 06:17
Hi everybody

I'm currently trying to sign my inf file, which generates a virtual com port
by using the usbser.sys driver. I want to sign it for Windows XP (x86),
Windows vista (x86 and x64) and Windows 7 (x86 and x64). So now I'm runnig
the DTM Test for each OS, but what Kind of Category to sign do I have to
choose?

There is the possibility tho choose Device Submission (Serial Port adapters)
or to choose Unclassified Submission. What is the difference between them?

A further Problem is, that the unclassified Submission Test runs without any
failures. But the Serial Port Adapter Test reports some failures . So is the
unclassified sufficient?

Thanks a lot
Fabi
From: Fabi on 9 Dec 2009 10:25
Actually with unclassified submission i mean only the "Driver Reliability"
Test. According to the manual this test is sufficient for getting the
signature: 'For an Unclassifed Signature, the Driver Reliability tests are
sufficient to obtain a signature for your driver'.

I'm still confused, can I only do this test to obtain a signature?

Thanks
Fabi

From: Don Burn on 9 Dec 2009 10:37
First do you want to sign your driver so it can work on X64 or to not popup
the warning that about the unsigned driver. Your discussion seems to be
the latter, but it is worth asking since many folks are confused that you
can digitaly sign the driver without being WHQL compliant (but you then get
the popup).

You need to check the WHQL testing guidelines, the last time I looked I
believe they were indicating that starting with SP1 of Vista and Windows 7
that if a driver created a device type that had a specific classification
that class of submission must be sent. This could have changed, but when I
last looked this was the case meaning you need the Serial Port Adapter Test.


--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply



"Fabi" <Fabi(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E9DD8078-F78E-4CB1-9360-C2B11DDDA444(a)microsoft.com...
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm currently trying to sign my inf file, which generates a virtual com
> port
> by using the usbser.sys driver. I want to sign it for Windows XP (x86),
> Windows vista (x86 and x64) and Windows 7 (x86 and x64). So now I'm runnig
> the DTM Test for each OS, but what Kind of Category to sign do I have to
> choose?
>
> There is the possibility tho choose Device Submission (Serial Port
> adapters)
> or to choose Unclassified Submission. What is the difference between them?
>
> A further Problem is, that the unclassified Submission Test runs without
> any
> failures. But the Serial Port Adapter Test reports some failures . So is
> the
> unclassified sufficient?
>
> Thanks a lot
> Fabi
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4672 (20091209) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4673 (20091209) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




From: Fabi on 9 Dec 2009 11:04
It is getting stranger here... under XP the Driver Reliability test ran
without any errors, but with Vista x86 the Test fails in the 'Common Scenario
Stress With IO'....

Can anybody help?

Thanks
Fabi
From: Fabi on 10 Dec 2009 03:01
Thanks a lot for your answer. Our main goal is to get rid of this pop up and
to be able to install the driver also under x64 Versions of Windows Vista and
Windows 7.

I think the information I found on the web are a bit confusing. For example
here is the introduction written by Microsoft for the Unclassified Submission:

'You can use the Unclassified Signature program to obtain a Microsoft
signature for your device drivers and INF files if no "Designed for Windows"
logo program exists for your device type. You can also use the Unclassified
Signature program to sign your filter drivers and device stacks if no
specific device is associated with your driver. You cannot use an
Unclassified Signature if a logo program exists for your driver or device
type. Unclassified Signature is not a device or system logo program and does
not grant you a "Designed for Windows" logo for your driver or device. It is
only used to obtain a signature for your driver.'

And a bit further down they write:
'The tests you must run depend upon the capabilities of the device or system
being tested. To see the complete list of tests that could be required for
your device, see the Driver Reliability Tests topic.
Note: The Driver Reliability tests are required for most logo programs in
addition to device-specific tests specified by each logo program. For an
Unclassifed Signature, the Driver Reliability tests are sufficient to obtain
a signature for your driver.'

Do you know any other, more precise documentation about the signing process.
I did not found them on the web.

Thanks a lot
Fabi


"Don Burn" wrote:

> First do you want to sign your driver so it can work on X64 or to not popup
> the warning that about the unsigned driver. Your discussion seems to be
> the latter, but it is worth asking since many folks are confused that you
> can digitaly sign the driver without being WHQL compliant (but you then get
> the popup).
>
> You need to check the WHQL testing guidelines, the last time I looked I
> believe they were indicating that starting with SP1 of Vista and Windows 7
> that if a driver created a device type that had a specific classification
> that class of submission must be sent. This could have changed, but when I
> last looked this was the case meaning you need the Serial Port Adapter Test.
>
>
> --
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> Remove StopSpam to reply


>
> .
>
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: WDDM Driver Vidpn implementation.
Next: Printer driver and DEVMODE confusion