WinUSB install on Vista 64

I am trying to install WinUSB on Vista 64 and it refuse in non debug mode.
and works great on any other version of the OS except 7 which haven't tested yet.

I have made a custom inf based on the sample provided.
I have made a cat file using inf2cat.
I have digitally sign the cat file.

Is it possible that I will still to pass the Logo Certification ???
I though that was the point of WinUSB?

Thanks for any help
A very confused guy at this moment.
Denis

"Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>
>I am trying to install WinUSB on Vista 64 and it refuse in non debug mode.
>and works great on any other version of the OS except 7 which haven't tested yet.
>
>I have made a custom inf based on the sample provided.
>I have made a cat file using inf2cat.
>I have digitally sign the cat file.
>
>Is it possible that I will still to pass the Logo Certification ???
>I though that was the point of WinUSB?

What do you mean by "it refuse"?

If you are trying to eliminate the "unsigned driver" warning at install
time, then yes, you will have to submit for the WHQL signature. WHQL
certifies the driver PACKAGE, not just the driver.

You do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit, right?
--
Tim Roberts,
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

It refuse to install the driver for this device.

No I just want something to install for real user without having to disable that signing requirement.
I though the WinUSB.sys was for those who cannot afford a full blown certification.
Here goes the little guy.

Yes I do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit, right?
and it reflects in my inf file. That part works ok up to, but not on Vista 64 meaning also works on XP 64.



"Tim Roberts" <> wrote in message news:...
> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>>
>>I am trying to install WinUSB on Vista 64 and it refuse in non debug mode.
>>and works great on any other version of the OS except 7 which haven't tested yet.
>>
>>I have made a custom inf based on the sample provided.
>>I have made a cat file using inf2cat.
>>I have digitally sign the cat file.
>>
>>Is it possible that I will still to pass the Logo Certification ???
>>I though that was the point of WinUSB?
>
> What do you mean by "it refuse"?
>
> If you are trying to eliminate the "unsigned driver" warning at install
> time, then yes, you will have to submit for the WHQL signature. WHQL
> certifies the driver PACKAGE, not just the driver.
>
> You do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit, right?
> --
> Tim Roberts,
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

you still need to have your package (inf, catalog, winsub coinstaller)
signed

d

--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It refuse to install the driver for this device.
>
> No I just want something to install for real user without having to
> disable that signing requirement.
> I though the WinUSB.sys was for those who cannot afford a full blown
> certification.
> Here goes the little guy.
>
> Yes I do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit,
> right?
> and it reflects in my inf file. That part works ok up to, but not on Vista
> 64 meaning also works on XP 64.
>
>
>
> "Tim Roberts" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>I am trying to install WinUSB on Vista 64 and it refuse in non debug
>>>mode.
>>>and works great on any other version of the OS except 7 which haven't
>>>tested yet.
>>>
>>>I have made a custom inf based on the sample provided.
>>>I have made a cat file using inf2cat.
>>>I have digitally sign the cat file.
>>>
>>>Is it possible that I will still to pass the Logo Certification ???
>>>I though that was the point of WinUSB?
>>
>> What do you mean by "it refuse"?
>>
>> If you are trying to eliminate the "unsigned driver" warning at install
>> time, then yes, you will have to submit for the WHQL signature. WHQL
>> certifies the driver PACKAGE, not just the driver.
>>
>> You do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit,
>> right?
>> --
>> Tim Roberts,
>> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>

But I signed those...
When you say signed you mean Not just signed but Logo passed, Wright?
Why the confusion when you say signed mean it, otherwise say Logo certified.
BTW: that should applied to the OS too when I try to install my driver the OS says the file is corrupt or it is not signed.
Are they scared to tell the truth to the world that they are going mad mad mad.
In that case, I don't see much point of migrating to WinUSB, might as well logo pass my own driver?

How about an HID? Do I still need to go through Logo.
In that case Logo is not targeting drivers but device itself.
Then why don't they say so in the first place, that would have save me a few weeks of trouble and aggravation.

Regards,
Denis


"Doron Holan [MSFT]" <> wrote in message news:%...
> you still need to have your package (inf, catalog, winsub coinstaller) signed
>
> d
>
> --
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote in message news:...
>> It refuse to install the driver for this device.
>>
>> No I just want something to install for real user without having to disable that signing requirement.
>> I though the WinUSB.sys was for those who cannot afford a full blown certification.
>> Here goes the little guy.
>>
>> Yes I do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit, right?
>> and it reflects in my inf file. That part works ok up to, but not on Vista 64 meaning also works on XP 64.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tim Roberts" <> wrote in message news:...
>>> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I am trying to install WinUSB on Vista 64 and it refuse in non debug mode.
>>>>and works great on any other version of the OS except 7 which haven't tested yet.
>>>>
>>>>I have made a custom inf based on the sample provided.
>>>>I have made a cat file using inf2cat.
>>>>I have digitally sign the cat file.
>>>>
>>>>Is it possible that I will still to pass the Logo Certification ???
>>>>I though that was the point of WinUSB?
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "it refuse"?
>>>
>>> If you are trying to eliminate the "unsigned driver" warning at install
>>> time, then yes, you will have to submit for the WHQL signature. WHQL
>>> certifies the driver PACKAGE, not just the driver.
>>>
>>> You do know there are separate co-installers for 64-bit and 32-bit, right?
>>> --
>>> Tim Roberts,
>>> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>>
>>

"Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>
>Why the confusion when you say signed mean it, otherwise say Logo certified.
>BTW: that should applied to the OS too when I try to install my driver the OS
>says the file is corrupt or it is not signed.

That means the driver PACKAGE is not signed.

>In that case, I don't see much point of migrating to WinUSB, might as well logo pass my own driver?

The point of using WinUSB is that you eliminate all of the many
opportunities for making stupid mistakes. It's still a driver, and you
still need a WHQL signature *IF* you want to eliminate the unsigned driver
warning.

Also, WinUSB will load in a Win64 system

>How about an HID? Do I still need to go through Logo.

If you have a custom INF, then you have a driver package, and you need the
WHQL signature to eliminate the warning. Most HID devices do not have an
INF.

>In that case Logo is not targeting drivers but device itself.

Absolutely. The logo targets DEVICES. The point of getting the logo is so
you can put the Windows logo on your device packaging. If you don't want
the logo, you can just submit for the WHQL signature, which addresses
driver packages.
--
Tim Roberts,
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

Thanks for being very absolutely clear about this as I was in a fog.
Finally I am starting to see clearly the path before me.

One more thing if you can. When you say;
> If you don't want the logo, you can just submit for the WHQL signature, which addresses
> driver packages.
Is it a choice I have: Will it load my driver in Vista 64 without having to tell customer to turn off signature checking?
If that so, I could give my driver which has been used for the last 5-7 years since those device already out there to customer.
The logo would be nice but will not be put on those device anyway nor their boxes.
How do I submit for the WHQL signature? All I could find is how to submit to Logo.

Thanks you are very clear.
Denis






"Tim Roberts" <> wrote in message news:...
> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>>
>>Why the confusion when you say signed mean it, otherwise say Logo certified.
>>BTW: that should applied to the OS too when I try to install my driver the OS
>>says the file is corrupt or it is not signed.
>
> That means the driver PACKAGE is not signed.
>
>>In that case, I don't see much point of migrating to WinUSB, might as well logo pass my own driver?
>
> The point of using WinUSB is that you eliminate all of the many
> opportunities for making stupid mistakes. It's still a driver, and you
> still need a WHQL signature *IF* you want to eliminate the unsigned driver
> warning.
>
> Also, WinUSB will load in a Win64 system
>
>>How about an HID? Do I still need to go through Logo.
>
> If you have a custom INF, then you have a driver package, and you need the
> WHQL signature to eliminate the warning. Most HID devices do not have an
> INF.
>
>>In that case Logo is not targeting drivers but device itself.
>
> Absolutely. The logo targets DEVICES. The point of getting the logo is so
> you can put the Windows logo on your device packaging. If you don't want
> the logo, you can just submit for the WHQL signature, which addresses
> driver packages.
> --
> Tim Roberts,
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

About :
> The point of getting the logo is so you can put the Windows logo
> on your device packaging. If you don't want the logo,
> you can just submit for the WHQL signature, which addresses
> driver packages.

Please don't stop there... That would be most valuable information.
Please explain or point where to go?



"Tim Roberts" <> wrote in message news:...
> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>>
>>Why the confusion when you say signed mean it, otherwise say Logo certified.
>>BTW: that should applied to the OS too when I try to install my driver the OS
>>says the file is corrupt or it is not signed.
>
> That means the driver PACKAGE is not signed.
>
>>In that case, I don't see much point of migrating to WinUSB, might as well logo pass my own driver?
>
> The point of using WinUSB is that you eliminate all of the many
> opportunities for making stupid mistakes. It's still a driver, and you
> still need a WHQL signature *IF* you want to eliminate the unsigned driver
> warning.
>
> Also, WinUSB will load in a Win64 system
>
>>How about an HID? Do I still need to go through Logo.
>
> If you have a custom INF, then you have a driver package, and you need the
> WHQL signature to eliminate the warning. Most HID devices do not have an
> INF.
>
>>In that case Logo is not targeting drivers but device itself.
>
> Absolutely. The logo targets DEVICES. The point of getting the logo is so
> you can put the Windows logo on your device packaging. If you don't want
> the logo, you can just submit for the WHQL signature, which addresses
> driver packages.
> --
> Tim Roberts,
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

"Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>
>One more thing if you can. When you say;
>
>> If you don't want the logo, you can just submit for the WHQL signature,
>> which addresses driver packages.
>
>Is it a choice I have: Will it load my driver in Vista 64 without having
>to tell customer to turn off signature checking?

The WHQL signature is completely unrelated to the 64-bit thing. They are
ENTIRELY separate. In order to be loaded AT ALL on a 64-bit system, YOU
must sign your driver with your own code-signing certificate (from one of
the chosen vendors). That is KMCS (Kernel-Mode Code Signing).

The WHQL signature merely stops the "caution, this driver is unsigned"
warning when you install the driver. That warning only affects
installation. Once installed, that warning never appears again and does
not prevent your driver your driver from running.

>If that so, I could give my driver which has been used for the last 5-7 years since
>those device already out there to customer.

Your 5-7 year old drivers aren't 64-bit, are they?

>The logo would be nice but will not be put on those device anyway nor their boxes.
>How do I submit for the WHQL signature? All I could find is how to submit to Logo.

It's the same program, except that you file in the "unclassified" category.
--
Tim Roberts,
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

> Your 5-7 year old drivers aren't 64-bit, are they?
Yes they are, Build for 64 since Windows 2000 DDK
Fully tested with XP 64 since 2004.
Although at that time since the users were less than a handful we just told them to disable digital signature.

> The WHQL signature is completely unrelated to the 64-bit thing. They are
> ENTIRELY separate. In order to be loaded AT ALL on a 64-bit system, YOU
> must sign your driver with your own code-signing certificate (from one of
> the chosen vendors). That is KMCS (Kernel-Mode Code Signing).
>
If I understand you.
I think I may have had the wrong kind of signature from VeriSign then.
I think they gave me user mode kind for web content, activex, cabs and so on...
Although, I specifically ask the guy for "Drivers" I should have said "Kernel mode"
Could that be possible?

Denis



"Tim Roberts" <> wrote in message news:...
> "Denis @ TheOffice" <> wrote:
>>
>>One more thing if you can. When you say;
>>
>>> If you don't want the logo, you can just submit for the WHQL signature,
>>> which addresses driver packages.
>>
>>Is it a choice I have: Will it load my driver in Vista 64 without having
>>to tell customer to turn off signature checking?
>
> The WHQL signature is completely unrelated to the 64-bit thing. They are
> ENTIRELY separate. In order to be loaded AT ALL on a 64-bit system, YOU
> must sign your driver with your own code-signing certificate (from one of
> the chosen vendors). That is KMCS (Kernel-Mode Code Signing).
>
> The WHQL signature merely stops the "caution, this driver is unsigned"
> warning when you install the driver. That warning only affects
> installation. Once installed, that warning never appears again and does
> not prevent your driver your driver from running.
>
>>If that so, I could give my driver which has been used for the last 5-7 years since
>>those device already out there to customer.
>
> Your 5-7 year old drivers aren't 64-bit, are they?


>
>>The logo would be nice but will not be put on those device anyway nor their boxes.
>>How do I submit for the WHQL signature? All I could find is how to submit to Logo.
>
> It's the same program, except that you file in the "unclassified" category.
> --
> Tim Roberts,
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.