Better watch out fellow coders. Make a useful utility for Windows and Microsoft might jump all over your ass for it. LinchpinLabs, an Australia-based company, released the Atsiv utility July 20th for free. It allows users circumvent a feature of the 64-bit version of Vista that allows only digitally-signed code to be loaded into the OS kernal. In short, you can’t go messing with Vista’s core in the 64-bit version without Atsiv.
Microsoft caught on to LinchpinLabs’ utility and decided it wasn’t going to have anyone messing around with its crappy new operating system. So Microsoft got sneaky and asked Verisign to yank LinchpinLabs’ certificate. Now the software supposedly no longer works. Either way, it’s just another example of why Microsoft sucks so much.
What the Eff? (I’m addicted to saying that ever since watching the David Blaine Gay Street Magic parodies on YouTube).
Vince, I have to say I’m disappointed about this post, since it strikes me as one of the typical Everything-Microsoft-does-is-bad posts. However, had you actually put one of your sober brain cells to use before sending this rant of you would have realized that there is a valid reason for keeping the 64 bit Vista kernel secure. The whole reason why 64 bit Vista only accepts signed drivers is to keep the system safe and running. So you don’t want some company to freely release a workaround that will let all those unsigned drivers back in after finally shutting them out.
Could there have been better ways to deal with this than to have their certificate pulled? Sure. Was it unjustified? No. The certificate is issued for trustworthy companies and to certify to the user that the driver does not pose any harm to reliability or stability of the system (in theory). However, a backdoor-to-the-unsigned-world kind of driver hardly fulfills that requirement. Hence they should not be certified.
I am not saying LinchpinLabs did not have good intentions when releasing the utility. Actually I’m not quite sure what their intentions were (except that spelling Vista backwards and using it as the name for your utility is satanic and needs to be exorcized ;-) ).
When Apple closes a backdoor on the iPhone, do you immediately write a post saying how much Apple sucks?
I’m incredible disappointed at CrunchGear for this post.
I’ve stopped reading slashdot and digg because of people who have a clear bias against Microsoft are bashing Microsoft without any arguments or arguments that are childish.
These kind of posts seriously take away from the professionalism of the site. I’ve only started reading CrunchGear recently and this is leaving me a really bad first impression.
Microsoft is so stupid for making their products insecure! Microsoft is so stupid for making their products more secure!
Glad I’m not Microsoft.
The intention of Atsiv was to allow users to load unsigned drivers of their choice. For example the Bluetooth drivers that I need to use to use my Bluetooth headset are unsigned. I did not choose for drivers to be unsigned. Nor have I choice to make them signed. I simply want to use them. Atsiv gave me this choice. Microsoft wishes to take that choice away from me.
Given that Atsiv requires the use to authorise its actions (through UAC), I fail to see how it is a security risk. I do not make the assumption that software is secure and trustworthy simply because it is signed by a company that can afford a certificate. A few years ago a major music label started shipping CDs with a root kit on it.
Ben.
The Atsiv utility was useful and did exactly what it said it did and was easily identifiable which made it useless to malware.
CrunchGear pointed out that Microsoft was oversetting the line. If I want to use legacy hardware then that’s my choice and it’s NOT up to Microsoft to tell me what I can and can’t run or use. Good article CrunchGear – point well made.
BTW if you want to see malware take a look at Alex Ionescu’s PurplePill – every malware package under the sun will be installing ATI drivers…
If I choose to load a unsigned driver,its my choice. Simple as that,it should NOT be microsofts choice. The company should get a lawsuit. This seems to be a pretty strait forward case of microsoft abusing its monopoly power.