Creative reaches new low

[Chris Nahr]

So I installed the latest X-Fi drivers for Vista 64 which were released this month. (That's an official release, not a beta release, just to be clear.) After the installation was finished the drivers had, as usual with Creative, left a ton of junk in the Windows\Temp directory, which I deleted as usual.

Imagine my surprise when, after the next reboot, my headphones emitted loud static noise!

After some inspection and a driver reinstallation I realized what the problem was. Please to be looking at the following screenshot of the driver properties page:



As you can see, the Creative drivers are not digitally signed which is supposed to be impossible in Vista 64. So how did those smart cookies get around this apparently very obnoxious restriction?

Easy, they installed driver files in the Temp directory! When I deleted them with all the junk left over from the installation the drivers stopped functioning. And because the Temp folder is not protected by Windows the system didn't notice the files were missing, and couldn't restore them.

(That's admittedly conjecture -- if someone has a better idea how Creative can make an unsigned driver run on Vista 64, and why they put driver files in Windows\Temp, I'd be happy to hear about it.)

Oh, and there's a final release of Alchemy. As far as I can tell it has the same functionality as the last preview release, but it's ten times as big... and contains registration nagware.

Suddenly the switch to on-board audio doesn't seem such a bad idea, if only to get rid of these irredeemable assclowns. :(

[Moggraider]

Creative shouldn't've done this, but I see the essential problem as Microsoft, with some of its more stupid security measures. On XP I've gotten that message that such and such drivers don't pass muster all the time, even with Nvidia reference drivers, and on Vista they only escalated the douchebaggery.

[Chris Nahr]

That's perfectly reasonable, though. Driver shouldn't be allowed to be installed on consumer systems willy-nilly, as they can completely fuck up your system. Digital signing is a minimal security threshold. What's really worrying here is how easily Microsoft's requirements are circumvented just by putting driver files in a different directory.

[Charles]

This sounds like the kind of programming I'd expect to see from DeepT. Maybe DeepT works for creative?

[Igor Muravyev]

Now, now, let's play nice boys.

[Drastic]

That's pretty low, all right.

Originally Posted by Chris Nahr

What's really worrying here is how easily Microsoft's requirements are circumvented just by putting driver files in a different directory.

Right now, the Starforce guys are cracking their knuckles and preparing to get to work.

[Case]

Originally Posted by Drastic

That's pretty low, all right.

Right now, the Starforce guys are cracking their knuckles and preparing to get to work.

Nah, they already have 64-bit, signed versions of the Starforce drivers. Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside, don't it?

[Drastic]

Warm, fuzzy, and DOMED!

[wisefool]

What is digital signing anyway? Some sort of checksum data submitted to a third-party? Then third party verifies this was written by this party and NEVER MODIFIED?

[Fugitive]

A certificate signed by Microsoft that verifies that the file or package really does come from Legit Company Inc. and isn't something that download.com found lying on the floor of their server room with the name NOTAVIRUS.EXE.

Edit: And it's tied to the package (dunno the details, but it's probably a cryptographically-strong hash) so that modifying the package would invalidate the certificate.

Edit^2: And it doesn't guarantee that there's nothing malicious in the package, but if there is, you know exactly who to blame, since the exploit would have had to be in there before the company applied the signature.

[BaconTastesGood]

Originally Posted by Charles

This sounds like the kind of programming I'd expect to see from DeepT. Maybe DeepT works for creative?

If it was DeepT would would have seen a thread six months ago entitled "How to circumvent Windows Vista signing requirement?"

[Jason McCullough]

I'd guess that it's a not a kernel-mode driver, as they're apparently only required to be certified in kernel mode. I know there was some work in changing the sound stack for Vista. Then again, there's a bunch of other requirements it should hit (secure media streaming, boot time).

The temporary directory thing is pretty strange. Have you contacted anyone official like?

[jeffd]

yeah I'm pretty sure on Vista that the sound stuff isn't kernel mode any more.

[DeepT]

Originally Posted by Charles

This sounds like the kind of programming I'd expect to see from DeepT. Maybe DeepT works for creative?

Wow, the hate must be strong. A completely unwarranted personal attack out of the blue. How nice.

[DeepT]

Originally Posted by BaconTastesGood

If it was DeepT would would have seen a thread six months ago entitled "How to circumvent Windows Vista signing requirement?"

Not quite as vicious as Charles since you are playing off his post, but still...

I think Charles qualifies for the secret DeepT hate fan-club, although you may need a stronger demonstration for your personal hatred of me to get in. I am sure the founding members will be sending an invite, maybe even two.

You get membership cards, access to the secret DeepT hate wiki, a pager to notify you of events that require prompt action, and I heard you even get invitations to some very shiek events.

[JPR]

Originally Posted by DeepT

I heard you even get invitations to some very shiek events.

Dungsroman can add this to his list.

[Equisilus]

I noticed this same behaviour with the installation of Vista-64 drivers for my old Audigy 2 ZS, except it only left two of the "not digitally signed" driver files in the Temp folder (ctpxinst.exe and cttele.dll). To me, it's pretty damn silly if that's part of Creative's installation process; I tend to clean up my Temp files from time-to-time and I'd hate to be breakin' things because they decided to leave necessary files in there.

[Chris Nahr]

Originally Posted by Jason McCullough

I'd guess that it's a not a kernel-mode driver, as they're apparently only required to be certified in kernel mode. I know there was some work in changing the sound stack for Vista. Then again, there's a bunch of other requirements it should hit (secure media streaming, boot time).

That's a good point, maybe the drivers aren't required to be signed after all. But why did they put files in Temp then? Random stupidity probably.

The current driver version doesn't support encrypted sound, by the way, according to the ReadMe.

The temporary directory thing is pretty strange. Have you contacted anyone official like?

Denny kindly offered me to forward the report to the Vista team that deals with this stuff, so maybe they'll just ban Creative drivers from being installed on any Windows OS. We can hope!

[Chris Nahr]

Originally Posted by Equisilus

I noticed this same behaviour with the installation of Vista-64 drivers for my old Audigy 2 ZS, except it only left two of the "not digitally signed" driver files in the Temp folder (ctpxinst.exe and cttele.dll). To me, it's pretty damn silly if that's part of Creative's installation process; I tend to clean up my Temp files from time-to-time and I'd hate to be breakin' things because they decided to leave necessary files in there.

Interesting. And it's not just us geeks who manually clean up temporary files; Vista still has a Disk Cleanup tool that will delete all temp files automatically to reclaim space. Can you imagine what will happen when an unsuspecting user runs this tool?

[EvilIdler]

You can't expect a TEMPORARY DIRECTORY to keep its contents for long.
What the hell were they thinking?

[Hans Lauring]

Originally Posted by DeepT

You get membership cards, access to the secret DeepT hate wiki, a pager to notify you of events that require prompt action, and I heard you even get invitations to some very shiek events.

I too want in on these shiek events.
I once went to Bahrain, but I never saw any sheik events.

[Raife]

[deepruntramp]

Originally Posted by JPR

Dungsroman can add this to his list.

Is there a link to said list?

SPOILER

Sheik is actually Zelda in disguise.

[DeepT]

I am sorry, I knew I would get the word wrong. Oh well.