I'm not aware of Microsoft signing off on vendor kernal drivers code changes.

Driver signing is not a Quality Assurance measure. It's an identify measure.

More importantly, the code signing is a security measure. You can in theory vet the signature database by hand preventing the execution of unapproved drivers.

Microsoft normally puts it in revocation mode only, with bad drivers with unfixed holes being blocked.

I think it was essentially a data/config file that was corrupt not a new driver kernel. nothing really to be signed and approved by mircosoft.

Would the disaster have been prevented if there was no code signing? Or are you arguing that Microsoft should scrutinize code even harder?

Microsoft isn’t scrutinizing this code, at all, right? It’s not like they’re doing code reviews of every vendor that does code signing in Windows.

Not code reviews but the driver is tested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL_Testing

Really? Is this the future of developers to just blindly trust a statistical text generator?

It's cool that you know how to ask a question on ChatGPT. But don't share it as if it's the truth on an obscure, halluncinable factoid.

>Is this the future of developers to just blindly trust a statistical text generator?

Unfortunately, yes.

why do you claim i doing it blindly?

As far as I can tell you just asked it a question then posted its response as if you expected it to be fact.

If that isn't blind trust, I don't know what is.

Added links to answer, they tell that drivers must be signed and tested by microsoft, the WHQL is part of that. Ability to do other way deprecated in 2021.

You are confusing notarized (what Apple does) and signed (what both do). The latter just allows to confirm legitimacy.

I guarantee you Apple will take zero responsibility for a failing or issue with third party software, notwithstanding the purported difference between notarized and signed.

Drivers yes, virus signature files or configuration files pushed by third parties, no.