Re: Chipset x64

For driver signing, only the OEM can fix that.  The current Intel chipset drivers are v9.2.2.1029 from here:
I will use these to update the Chipset DriverPacks but the driver date/version have not changed for those unsigned drivers.
The /forceunsigned flag is generally not recommended but will not cause problems unless the driver files have been tampered with, then you will have a compromised install source.  If you are 100% certain of the unsigned driver source, then use the flag.
The only other way to "fix" the error is to delete the unsigned .inf from the packs.

Re: Chipset x64

That exemplifies the level of professionalism built into the main packs.  This is the level of 'source-security' employed to ensure malware doesn't creep into the packs.  A prudent step, i would assume, considering the level of threat kernel-mode drivers can represent.  WHQL signing assures (someone want to check on THIS one, please) that no 3rd-party could just 'hack' the .sys file; for example.

Last edited by TechDud (2011-08-06 18:20:02)

Re: Chipset x64

Yup, when Realtek's WHQL key was compromised, M$ issued a hotfix that would render any driver using that certificate as "malware" and remove it.  That's the only documented case of driver-level hacking that I'm aware of, and it hasn't happened again...so far.
Maintaining driver-signing whenever possible is one of our core values.

Re: Chipset x64

Ok guys makes perfect sense, I was also inclined to keep the driver signing of course...
Just curious what your view is on the unsigned driver-"issues", nothing more smile

Now regarding the fact you have a local 11.08b1 on your machine, makes me curious and anxious to test it big_smile (when reading the other two threads in this Chipset sub-forum) and the fact of the Intel chipset driver link you posted I am anxious to try it...
I could make it myself as well, but what is the point of "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak? LOL big_smile

I'll wait till you have posted it here... (hopefully not too long though tongue)

Last edited by mindwarper (2011-08-06 23:16:36)

http://d1syubgj0w3cyv.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Av2BDsDf_iiqO8a4dpI49DKicUs_0zEQtEPcTGyCqV4/perpetual:forever/userbar/tester-1.png

Re: Chipset x64

DriverPack Chipset x64 is done.  I'll upload the RC to mediafire for you to test.
Here's the changelog for the current build:

Changelog:
11.08  Aug 2011
Added:
- Nvidia\4 NVIDIA SMU
      DriverVer= 03/22/2010,5.1.2600.0208 (newer than Nvidia\3 but with fewer HWIDs)
- USB\Prolific Prolific USB-to-Serial Comm Port
      DriverVer=04/29/2011,3.3.17.203

Updated:
- Intel\1 Intel inf package (includes netbook Poulsbo Vista driver)
      DriverVer= 9.2.2.1029 (6/23/2011)
- Intel\MEI\3 Intel Management Engine Interface (Intel 3-Series Chipsets)
      DriverVer=09/18/2009,3.2.20.1046 (from MEI_v3.2.50.1059 package)
- Nvidia\2 NVIDIA SMBus (from 15.57-nforce-winvista-win7-64bit-international-whql package, supports Win7 now)
      DriverVer= 03/22/2010, 4.7.9
- USB\Intel\1 Renesas Electronics USB 3.0 Root Hub
      DriverVer=06/10/2011,2.1.19.0 (from Intel USB3_allOS_2.1.19.0_PV.exe package)

Known errors:
x64\C\Intel\1\cdvcore.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-ahci.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-cor.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-id2.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-ide.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-smb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-usb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\NehalMEX.inf (incorrect SHA-1 hash in .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patahci.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patcore.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patid2.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patide.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patsmb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patusb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\SNB2009.inf (incorrect SHA-1 hash in .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\Tcreek.inf (incorrect SHA-1 hash in .cat file)
Error - The driver package contains x64 boot-critical drivers, but the drivers are not properly signed.
Use the /forceunsigned option to install the drivers.

The driver-signing errors are purely Intel's fault, and have been for a while now.  The have v9.2.3* in testing, but the beta build I grabbed still doesn't fix the above errors.  Again, this is Intel's fault.

Re: Chipset x64

It seems you've forgotten to post the mediafire URL tongue LOL

OK will test this perhaps during the next few days... next to my quest for a job...
I have a test machine with an older Xpress 3200 chipset so I can not really test the intel chipset ones...
It is the Asus A8R32-MVP board smile
Another test machine will be the Asus A8N32-SLI smile but that is still to be assembled somewhere in future...

To be honest I don't think I will use the /forceunsigned flag for the reasons mentioned by you both earlier big_smile
But I will go and see what I will do perhaps


Also x86 equivalent "ready" or not? wink


- An other idea I'm having is: can we not push (read contact) intel to take a look at them and maybe they'll notice?, don't know really
- Is it necessary to inject the drivers into install.wim after integrating them into boot.wim? or is that double the work, I am not sure...

Last edited by mindwarper (2011-08-07 02:09:55)

http://d1syubgj0w3cyv.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Av2BDsDf_iiqO8a4dpI49DKicUs_0zEQtEPcTGyCqV4/perpetual:forever/userbar/tester-1.png

Re: Chipset x64

Here you go mr. impatient! big_smile
link removed

Re: Chipset x64

I am not impatient sad
Just curious what you've achieved big_smile

OK will test this perhaps during the next few days... next to my quest for a job...
I have a test machine with an older Xpress 3200 chipset so I can not really test the intel chipset ones...
It is the Asus A8R32-MVP board smile
Another test machine will be the Asus A8N32-SLI smile but that is still to be assembled somewhere in future...

To be honest I don't think I will use the /forceunsigned flag for the reasons mentioned by you both earlier big_smile
But I will go and see what I will do perhaps

- An other idea I'm having is: can we not push (read contact) intel to take a look at them and maybe they'll notice?, don't know really
- Is it necessary to inject the drivers into install.wim after integrating them into boot.wim? or is that double the work, I am not sure...

http://d1syubgj0w3cyv.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Av2BDsDf_iiqO8a4dpI49DKicUs_0zEQtEPcTGyCqV4/perpetual:forever/userbar/tester-1.png

Re: Chipset x64

mindwarper wrote:

- Is it necessary to inject the drivers into install.wim after integrating them into boot.wim? or is that double the work, I am not sure...

The two .wim files do completely different things.  The boot.wim is the PE environment and is ONLY used to detect the drives and extract the install.wim to the primary partition.
After restart, the boot.wim doesn't do anything because the system has booted from the primary partition.
So, really, the only pack that needs to be integrated into boot.wim is the dpms.  DriverPack Chipset is only needed if you're trying to boot from a USB3 device or something else covered by the Chipset pack.

Re: Chipset x64

mr_smartepants wrote:
mindwarper wrote:

- Is it necessary to inject the drivers into install.wim after integrating them into boot.wim? or is that double the work, I am not sure...

The two .wim files do completely different things.  The boot.wim is the PE environment and is ONLY used to detect the drives and extract the install.wim to the primary partition.
After restart, the boot.wim doesn't do anything because the system has booted from the primary partition.
So, really, the only pack that needs to be integrated into boot.wim is the dpms.  DriverPack Chipset is only needed if you're trying to boot from a USB3 device or something else covered by the Chipset pack.

So If I understand this correctly, do you recommend doing the following?
1. Integrate only dpms into boot.wim
2. Integrate both dpms and DriverPack Chipset (and others???) into install.wim

Is that what you do/recommend?
Or which Packs do you do integrate normally for yourself and into which .wim file?

Last edited by mindwarper (2011-08-11 06:13:09)

http://d1syubgj0w3cyv.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Av2BDsDf_iiqO8a4dpI49DKicUs_0zEQtEPcTGyCqV4/perpetual:forever/userbar/tester-1.png

Re: Chipset x64

Yes, exactly that.
I use my SAD2 utility to update all drivers post-install.  Otherwise the install.wim driverstore folder gets ballooned into oblivion for no reason.
boot.wim - dpms only
install.wim - two DriverPacks; DriverPack Chipset & Mass Storage only

That's my personal preference.

Re: Chipset x64

mr_smartepants wrote:

Yes, exactly that.
I use my SAD2 utility to update all drivers post-install.  Otherwise the install.wim driverstore folder gets ballooned into oblivion for no reason.
boot.wim - dpms only
install.wim - two DriverPacks; DriverPack Chipset & Mass Storage only

That's my personal preference.

Perfect big_smile
Thank you for the clarification on this one!

That is what I will use from now on smile
Thanks again!

http://d1syubgj0w3cyv.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Av2BDsDf_iiqO8a4dpI49DKicUs_0zEQtEPcTGyCqV4/perpetual:forever/userbar/tester-1.png

Re: Chipset x64

mr_smartepants wrote:

DriverPack Chipset x64 is done.  I'll upload the RC to mediafire for you to test.
Here's the changelog for the current build:

Changelog:
(...)

Known errors:
x64\C\Intel\1\cdvcore.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-ahci.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-cor.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-id2.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-ide.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-smb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\DH89xxCC-usb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\NehalMEX.inf (incorrect SHA-1 hash in .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patahci.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patcore.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patid2.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patide.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patsmb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patusb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\SNB2009.inf (incorrect SHA-1 hash in .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\Tcreek.inf (incorrect SHA-1 hash in .cat file)
Error - The driver package contains x64 boot-critical drivers, but the drivers are not properly signed.
Use the /forceunsigned option to install the drivers.

The driver-signing errors are purely Intel's fault, and have been for a while now.  The have v9.2.3* in testing, but the beta build I grabbed still doesn't fix the above errors.  Again, this is Intel's fault.

These incorrect SHA-1 errors are easily corrected, have tested them successfully big_smile
1. Copy all files from WIN7 dir of INF_allOS_9.2.2.1034_PV.exe archive to a temporary location
2. Now Copy these files into main All dir of the same archive file
3. Now copy this whole set  to the Intel/1 dir of the DriverPack Chipset package
4. Done:)

Updated to 11.08r2
link removed

Changelog:
11.08r2  18 Aug 2011
Updated:
- Intel\1 Intel inf package (drivers updated for D2500 and D2700 boards)
      DriverVer= 9.2.2.1034 (8/16/2011)

Known errors:
x64\C\Intel\1\patahci.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patcore.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patid2.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patide.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patsmb.inf (no .cat file)
x64\C\Intel\1\patusb.inf (no .cat file)
Error - The driver package contains x64 boot-critical drivers, but the drivers are not properly signed. 
Use the /forceunsigned option to install the drivers.

Last edited by mindwarper (2011-08-18 23:21:53)

http://d1syubgj0w3cyv.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Av2BDsDf_iiqO8a4dpI49DKicUs_0zEQtEPcTGyCqV4/perpetual:forever/userbar/tester-1.png

Re: Chipset x64

mr_smartepants wrote:

Yup, when Realtek's WHQL key was compromised, M$ issued a hotfix that would render any driver using that certificate as "malware" and remove it.  That's the only documented case of driver-level hacking that I'm aware of, and it hasn't happened again...so far.
Maintaining driver-signing whenever possible is one of our core values.

Rent the 'cloud', & someone could eventually break the 2048-bit encryption, extract the signing-key, & repeat history?  Then, maybe no driver would be safe.

Re: Chipset x64

NEC/Renesas USB3 driver updated to v2.1.25.0 (Win-All-WHQL) here:  http://downloadmirror.intel.com/19880/e … NEC_PV.exe cool

Last edited by TechDud (2011-09-27 17:12:38)

Re: Chipset x64

Yes, I've had that since 22 Sep but they borked the installer so it can't be disassembled easily.  I don't have time to mess with it.

Re: Chipset x64

Start the executive, do not click next.  Navigate to your temporary folder, the msi will be in a folder with a name like '{DED5BB9A-63BC-45A3-8B5F-ADD1B6A40195}' (works with xp)
The nusb3drv.msi file can then be UniExtracted. big_smile

Re: Chipset x64

Updated to 11.09.

Re: Chipset x64

No more 'known issues'?  Nice; kudos to mr_smartepants & mindwarper!

Re: Chipset x64

Nope.  The latest Intel drivers solve the missing .cat errors in DISM.  All clean! smile

Re: Chipset x64

Updated to 11.10 (used final version of Intel drivers.)

Re: Chipset x64

mr_smartepants wrote:

Updated to 11.10

Erroe with NEC USB 3.0 on the Win7 x86/x32 - DP_Chipset_wnt6-x**_1110.7z\D\C\USB\Intel\1\
in this release version 2.1.25.0 - 100% weorked version is 2.1.16.0 - version 2.1.27.0 while not tested

Worked on Windows 8.1 Pro

Re: Chipset x64

i got a bsod during w7 setup with integrated DP_Chipset_wnt6-x64_1110 in VMWARE!

i have resolved this problem by removing
DP_Chipset_wnt6-x64_1110\x64\C\AMD\1\Filter\NB-SB\LH64A Folder
and
DP_Chipset_wnt6-x64_1110\x64\C\AMD\1\Filter\NB\LH64A Folder

Files in
DP_Chipset_wnt6-x64_1110\x64\C\AMD\1\Filter\NB\LH64A and
DP_Chipset_wnt6-x64_1110\x64\C\AMD\1\Filter\NB\W764A are exactly the same.

Last edited by predator2003 (2011-11-05 21:00:22)

Re: Chipset x64

predator2003 - Yes! AMD Filter in previous year old version and now new version got BSOD!

Worked on Windows 8.1 Pro

Re: Chipset x64

Guys, I've already got new versions built.  I was going to upload them today but I've been really sick and didn't have the energy to sit at the computer. 
I'll get them finalized very soon.