Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Nouveau Advances For OpenGL 3.2 Support

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamin545 View Post
    maybe thats a big reason nobody has realy made (opensource) windows support to the current gallium codebase, because is signifigantly more likely it would be used in a propriatary driver? there wouldnt be a lot of motivation to just make that i guess.
    You can easily make such a Windows driver be GPL by making your changes be GPL. I guess the issue of driver signing is worse, IIRC MS doesn't allow unsigned drivers from Vista onwards without boot code trickery. MS wouldn't sign a driver for free, users wouldn't install something that opens their system to (more) rootkits.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    You can easily make such a Windows driver be GPL by making your changes be GPL. I guess the issue of driver signing is worse, IIRC MS doesn't allow unsigned drivers from Vista onwards without boot code trickery. MS wouldn't sign a driver for free, users wouldn't install something that opens their system to (more) rootkits.
    Theoretically, if you had the driver built and working, you could get ReactOS to sign it.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    That's interesting, how did they get a key? What purpose would ReactOS making drivers for genuine Windows have?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    That's interesting, how did they get a key? What purpose would ReactOS making drivers for genuine Windows have?
    They stole it: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293818

    No, seriously, I guess they just paid for it. Verisign/Symantec are selling them.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    Well what the fuck. I thought they had an actually secure setup where MS vetted every kernel mode signing cert. If you can just buy one for 200$, that's just asking for rootkits.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Well what the fuck. I thought they had an actually secure setup where MS vetted every kernel mode signing cert. If you can just buy one for 200$, that's just asking for rootkits.
    I'm sure they do vet it- which is why it's kind of pointless to try getting a cert if you plan to do malicious things. You still have to provide information, and if you're going to try to convince the certificate authority that you're real when you're not, might as well just borrow someone else's or do something that doesn't require a signed cert.

    MS can blacklist your cert, and it'll probably be a big news story if an issued code signing cert turns out to be malicious and not stolen, which will further limit the damage that can be done.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    1. Buy 1000 Russian identities in bulk, make sure they are spread evenly and unrelated.
    2. Buy 1000 signing certs.
    3. Even if they close one, no prob.
    4. ???
    5. PROFIT

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •