Modem compatibility--digital signing

[billurie]

For awhile, as the archives show, I was troubled by
an inability of my HotFax software to find the phone
line, and it was suspected that SP2, or its Firewall,
or Norton/Symantec System Works 2005 were the cause.

This is to report that I believe the mystery has been
solved. The modem furnished in this machine was a
Conexant Soft56K modem. Apparently it was fine through
XP/SP1, but SP2 seems to have added something I've heard
referred to as "digital signing", and the solution has
been to delete that modem, and let Windows find and install
a V92 modem from its inventory. HotFax is now working again.

If someone would like to to post something educational
regarding digital signing, it would be welcome.

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Usually, insofar as the system is concerned, digital signing is irrelevant.
It is simply a notice to the user that drivers they are trying to install
have not been tested by Microsoft. I doubt seriously you could find a
system out there that does not have at least some drivers that were not
digitally signed. Most drivers you download from manufacturer's websites
were not digitally signed as they were either not submitted to Microsoft for
testing or the drivers are still being tested.

In the larger scheme of things, it generally doesn't make much difference as
long as the manufacturer has tested and updated the drivers. I have seen a
few instances of people reporting they could not install various drivers
because they were not digitally signed but this is anecdotal at best. It's
essentially nothing more than a notification to the user.

Conexant modem chipsets have been problematic for quite some time. They can
be finicky about firmware, they can be finicky about drivers, it's possible
you were simply selecting an incorrect driver and when you let the system
search it simply found the appropriate driver that just happened to be
digitally signed.

 

[billurie]

No, Michael. The history is that my system came with pre-SP1 XP,
and the Conexant modem, and I installed and used HotFax.

Then I installed SP1, no problem. Then last autumn, I
installed SP2 and spend several months trying to get
HotFax to work again. It was suspected for awhile that
upgrading NSW2004 to NSW 2005 may have been the
cause, but cleaning all Norton off the machine didn't
help. Likewise SP2 Firewall. It wasn't any matter of my
selecting an incorrect driver, as the sequence I outlined
corroborates.

Their driver was fine until the system in which it had
to operate changed, and then I had to find a driver that worked.
Trying to get it from Conexant or eMachines didn't work.

I still don't know what "digital signing" is a code word
for, nor been told whether actually SP1 doesn't care but
SP2 does.....but it would make me feel that the loop has been
closed if that was the single reason for the incompatibility.

Thanks, and kind regards, Michael.

Bill Lurie

 

[Will Hoenig]

Digital Signing probably had nothing to do with it, because it has been
around since before SP1. Your Modem drivers were probably lost in the
unknown of cyberspace during the SP2 upgrade, and the new drivers were just
reinstalling the old ones correctly.

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Okay, the system changed and that changed the system environment. It's not
unusual for things that had worked before to stop working when you do an
update, especially one as extensive as SP2. If you note responses to most
posts from people who say things were fine, then they installed SP2 and this
device or that device not longer functions, you'll find most advice
including from me recommends checking the device manufacturer's website for
the latest XP compatible drivers for that device and if that doesn't resolve
it to check with the manufacturer to see if they are supporting the device
in SP2.

In your case, going to the device manufacturer or the PC manufacturer
apparently didn't work. As I said, digital signing is nothing more than a
means of showing through a digital signature that drivers have been tested
and approved my Microsoft. Normally, the fact they aren't signed, doesn't
make a difference as long as the drivers are from the manufacturer. It
appears, it just so happened in your case, the system found a driver that
was compatible with your device and it happened to be digitally signed. The
digital signature is not a magic elixir, it is simply an assurance to the
user. And, because drivers change so rapidly for some devices, most
notably, graphics card and soundcard, it's no assurance of continued
functionality as the system is updated. In fact, if users were to wait for
such drivers to appear, they'd often end up without the use of the device
assuming they were seeking updates because the device stopped functioning
after installing SP2 or some other system update.

Further, the digitally signed drivers usually found at Windows Update are
not only outdated by they are available to most users, they are minimalist
in the features they support. In other words, they usually only support
basic functions, more advanced functions require the drivers directly from
the manufacturer, a notation of which most users will find at Windows update
when using it to update drivers.

 

[billurie]

Conexant modem chipsets have been problematic for quite some time. They can
be finicky about firmware, they can be finicky about drivers, it's possible
you were simply selecting an incorrect driver and when you let the system
search it simply found the appropriate driver that just happened to be
digitally signed.

You're most likely correct. Unforunate that the modus operandi of
getting correct upgrades (when needed) from people like Conexant
and eMachines just doesn't work. I lucked out more or less
fortuitously, in stumbling across the modems built into the
software by............the usual whipping boy, Microsoft. In any
case, all's now well.

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Michael

I came across two Conexant modem driver CDs some time back.. I have never
seen so many variations in my life.. when installing the modem, one ran the
CD to obtain the driver, but all that appeared was a huge listing of folders
all containing slightly different versions.. no pointer as to which one to
pick..

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Sounds about right, I had exactly the same experience and that was before
XP.

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

My experience was pre-XP too.. I see the name 'Conexant' in a system config
and still feel the need to hide..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

 

[Andrew Murray]

I think the message "installing unsigned drivers could cause the system to
fail immediately or in the future" is disconcerting and misleading to
inexperienced users.

I recently installed a serial external modem. The drivers that came with
the disk said "not signed...not recommended for use etc" But the
instructions say to ignore that warning and "install anyway".

Initially I tried installing a USB modem and got the "drivers not
tested...." message and was mislead into thinking if I purchased a new
modem, it would have the drivers for XP and assumption was they'd be MS
approved/tested, however that wasn't the case and the same "not tested"
message came up as well.

Sounds more like a disclaimer along the lines:

"Don't blame us, we warned you your system could fail if you used un-signed
drivers....if you choose to ignore this warning and your system does fail
because of these driver files, on your own head be it."

On a brighter note, I haven't had any trouble from my new modem with
unsigned drivers....Yet.

Usually, insofar as the system is concerned, digital signing is
irrelevant. It is simply a notice to the user that drivers they are trying
to install have not been tested by Microsoft. I doubt seriously you could
find a system out there that does not have at least some drivers that were
not digitally signed. Most drivers you download from manufacturer's
websites were not digitally signed as they were either not submitted to
Microsoft for testing or the drivers are still being tested.

In the larger scheme of things, it generally doesn't make much difference
as long as the manufacturer has tested and updated the drivers. I have
seen a few instances of people reporting they could not install various
drivers because they were not digitally signed but this is anecdotal at
best. It's essentially nothing more than a notification to the user.

Conexant modem chipsets have been problematic for quite some time. They
can be finicky about firmware, they can be finicky about drivers, it's
possible you were simply selecting an incorrect driver and when you let
the system search it simply found the appropriate driver that just
happened to be digitally signed.

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

Yup, we are of like mind on this!

 

[Philippe L. Balmanno]

Usually, insofar as the system is concerned, digital signing is irrelevant.
It is simply a notice to the user that drivers they are trying to install
have not been tested by Microsoft. I doubt seriously you could find a
system out there that does not have at least some drivers that were not
digitally signed. Most drivers you download from manufacturer's websites
were not digitally signed as they were either not submitted to Microsoft for
testing or the drivers are still being tested.

In the larger scheme of things, it generally doesn't make much difference as
long as the manufacturer has tested and updated the drivers. I have seen a
few instances of people reporting they could not install various drivers
because they were not digitally signed but this is anecdotal at best. It's
essentially nothing more than a notification to the user.

Conexant modem chipsets have been problematic for quite some time. They can
be finicky about firmware, they can be finicky about drivers, it's possible
you were simply selecting an incorrect driver and when you let the system
search it simply found the appropriate driver that just happened to be
digitally signed.

Portablility = security risk consider all stolen/missing laptops even
easier to steal/loose a smaller unit.

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)]

I don't understand how this relates. Regardless of who is in possession of
the laptop, they could still download drivers, digitally signed or not. The
digital signature for drivers is an assurance they've been tested by
Microsoft. It also is a test of legitimacy assuming the user did not go to
Windows Update or the hardware manufacturer's website to download the
drivers. The digital signature is not on the user side, it's on the
download side, in this case, specifically the drivers.