59 replies to this topic

[James]

Something is wrong, because the MD5 I get for KB942288-v3.cat is 3910c17a28e118d0ae5c8b6977c87c32, which agrees with the APM.

--

[Cristiano]

weird. i've just download this link, that is the same into enu/ptb/ptg releases even to the md5: 448447E0BA4560CD558EDDB5F5B0809E

then, i've just extracted the content of this kb, by choosing this command:
WindowsXP-KB942288-v3-x86.exe /x:c:\cpd\kb942288 (but you may choose any folder, as you wish).

then, look into C:\CPD\kb942288\UPDATE folder. you will have in there the kb942288-v3.cat file. then, take the md5 for that file. you will got ad7c4890876b9562bd526c9c83eb2e14

you see, it's pretty easy overlook something

[]s

[James]

No, I don't get that at all.

Download from the link given, check the Digital signature, to see that it's genuine:

C:\TEST\kb942288_20090406_new\WindowsXP-KB942288-v3-x86.exe:
		Signers:
				Microsoft Corporation
				Microsoft Code Signing PCA
				Microsoft Root Authority
		Signing date:   20:13 22/05/2008

Take the file MD5...

448447e0ba4560cd558eddb5f5b0809e  C:\TEST\kb942288_20090406_new\WindowsXP-KB942288-v3-x86.exe

Then extract the contents and I STILL get 3910c17....

3910c17a28e118d0ae5c8b6977c87c32  C:\TEST\kb942288_20090406_new\UPDATE\kb942288-v3.cat

--

[Cristiano]

i can't believe this... how can an file that matches the md5 have 2 different files inside? take a look at the .md5 file attached

i've moved this file to another folder, just to be able to get the hdsfv file for just the files from this kb. if you can, please compare booth. we may have missing something

also, i'm uploading more details to our ftp right now. james, if you can, please take a look into the file that is at my folder, at our ftp (burn after reading)

[]s

ps: sorry for the .bmp file, but i don't have an better tool in here

[James]

Looks like all the files in your UPDATE folder (except the two very small ones) are corrupted somehow.

--

[Cristiano]

are you sure? that file was extracted in 2 different machines and several times each one. also, i've uploaded the issue to allow better checking

also, the .cat file is the exact same one that is at my system at home. it looks more like an issue from the md5 tool.

[]s

[James]

Cristiano, on Apr 6 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

... it looks more like an issue from the md5 tool.

Yes, that's quite possible. It's the results in the RAR that are corrupted. Not just the MD5s, but also some of the file sizes. Have you tried using md5deep from the Command Prompt, or something else?

--

[Cristiano]

the md5 was taken with hksfv, an freeware tool and also with nero md5 tool, also freeware. doing the test with md5 tool free v1.5.32 i also get the exact same md5. also, i have to run autopatcher at least 2 times a day, in different machines. some are already updated in some way, others, don't. and the detection that i've set always worked. and that is the main reason why i'm concerned about this issue

could be an nice thing if someone else do the same test, extracting the content of this kb, downloaded straight from ms, and compare the files. this could be an of those very rare cases where different files has the exact same md5. it's rare, but it may happen and also it may be an issue that comes straight from ms mirrors

[]s

[James]

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Apr 6 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

-> XP.SP3\modules\Components\__msxml
...KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)
...MSXML2.6_files - (and 1 file)
...MSXML6SP1_x86_files - (empty)
MSXML2.6_enu.apm
KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm

Not sure how you got some of these, specifically the 2.5 stuff. Did you run the Windows 2000 and Windows XP scripts together at one time?

There are script commands to flush out old XML 2.5/2.6 stuff in Windows 2000, which I can add to the XP script as well.

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Apr 6 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

-> XP.SP3\modules\Critical
...KB942763_xp_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)

Did you not run Apup for a couple of months in late 2008? I had a delete command in for this, from 07-August-2008, but it was removed on 12-December-2008.

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Apr 6 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

James, on Apr 6 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

I can then run this through my compare tools ...

What tools are these? ...

Some custom stuff of my own plus WinMerge.

--

[_def_x_]

Quote

Did you run the Windows 2000 and Windows XP scripts together

I honestly don't remember ever putting 2 OSs in the same folder, but if the XP SP3 script has never had 2.5/2.6 stuff,
then that would be how I got it.

Quote

Did you not run Apup for a couple of months in late 2008?

This might have been when my UPS battery failed and I was using my old 486 machine for a while - in fact, I think I was installing the battery on Christmas day - so yes.

I think it would be nice to have md5 files added now and again when scripts get updated so you had something to run that is a little easier to troubleshoot a release with - as an example:

The md5 can verify the release (like a script - are all the files present) but can also offer an exact number of files in a given folder, when opened in a program that gives off line numbers, then you highlight the same folder in the release and if the number of files differs (Explorer - Properties) - there is a stray. I'm sure there is a program out there that can compare the data between 2 files and highlight the differences - file "A" has 3 more exe and 2 more apm files than file "B" and this is where the difference is located - comparing the md5 offered with the script (an additional file in the 7z) and the md5 I create at my end.

Mike

[James]

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Apr 6 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

I honestly don't remember ever putting 2 OSs in the same folder, but if the XP SP3 script has never had 2.5/2.6 stuff, ...

I'm still looking at that. I haven't had time to go through all the old scripts yet.

Incidentally, an extra empty folder will not cause a release to go "Unofficial". Only extra files.

--

[Cristiano]

sorry for my late to post the results that i can get to the issue with windows installer 4.5. i had some trouble to bypass our firewall restrictions to sourceforge, but i've managed to do that again and i've got the results for sh1, sha256 and md5 with those tools. still, the same results (that are attached in here, in recursive mode)

[]s

[_def_x_]

Everything is Official!

With the removal of these strays from Extras,

\modules\AddOns\__TweakUI\TweakUI210_x86_files
...TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

\modules\AddOns
...\__Wallpapers
...\APWalls_files (4 files)
...\NewWalls_files (18 files)
...APWalls_x86.apm
...NewWalls_x86.apm

my AddOns.Misc release is Official.
...DirectX (March 2009)
...DotNet
...Extras
...Java Runtime (JRE) 6u13

Mike

[high5]

Hi guys,

I've been following this thread over the past few days, and although I never payed too much attention to this entire unofficial/unsupported thing, up until recently.

The releases I downloaded *never* showed as official, and I've been using apup from the day one.

I'm using the following releases:

AutoPatcher Updater 1.0.5
AutoPatcher Engine 5.6.81
AutoPatcher for Windows XP SP3 (x86) - English
DirectX Addon Pack
NET Framework Addon Pack - English
Extras Addon Pack - English
AutoPatcher for Office 2003 (English)
Office Addon Pack (English) - English

Last night, I decided to re-download all of the above listed releases to and see what the outcome would be. I left apup to download everything overnight. The download went without a hiccup, but it *still* shows as unofficial, as you can see from here:
http://vedran.hocuin...ap/ap_unoff.png

I've also generated md5 hashes for the entire Autopatcher folder, so in case anyone wants to take a look:
http://vedran.hocuin...p/checksums.md5

Any suggestions?

[Cristiano]

office 2003 release was signed by the last time at nov 28 2008. the latest update for the script was at mar 12 2009, so i bet that your download is showing also unoficial due that. if you can, please run apup, then hit the about button, and then version. you will see an screen like the ones posted above. in that screen, you can see every release that is signed/unsigned, allowing an fast check of that

[]s

[high5]

Cristiano, on Apr 7 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

office 2003 release was signed by the last time at nov 28 2008. the latest update for the script was at mar 12 2009, so i bet that your download is showing also unoficial due that. if you can, please run apup, then hit the about button, and then version. you will see an screen like the ones posted above. in that screen, you can see every release that is signed/unsigned, allowing an fast check of that

[]s

Cristiano,

Yes, you are correct!

Here's the screenshot:
http://vedran.hocuin.../ap_relinfo.png

EDIT:
Dang, that's what you get when trying to do three different things at once...
It isn't Office 2003 release that's troublesome, but rather Office Addons.

Edited by high5, 07 April 2009 - 11:08 AM.

[_def_x_]

Since I have ALL these releases (in separate folders mostly) I might be able to help but it will take some creativity.
-->> I'll edit (update) my post to keep the thread from growing.

04.07.09 - Did running APUP on all the releases (getting the latest files) fix anything? Always run APUP again before posting to have
the latest data. BTW, I had ran APUP and updated my Extras with Cristiano's fix, it did make the Extras show "True" (was "False") but
it didn't make my release Official until I found the strays (extra files) - you may just need to update your releases???.

Update:

Quote

I don't know if this was aimed at me,

Yes it is High5, you requested help in post 34.

Your md5 includes java jre 6u13 but your screenshot #36/code #34 is missing this. I used your own md5 and created your release,
...Windows XP.SP3
...Office 2003 English
...DotNet Addon Pack
...AutoPatcher Engine
...Office Addon Pack
...DirectX Addon Pack - March 2009
...Extras
...Java Runtime (JRE) - 6u13

and it checks, it shows as Official (and passes using your md5 - 791 parts), and an Office Addon Pack that
had to have been Official.

High5.AP.Release.From.md5
High5.md5.Pass.AP.Release

Mike

Edited by gUiTaR_mIkE, 07 April 2009 - 01:10 PM.

[high5]

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Apr 7 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Did running APUP on all the releases (getting the latest files) fix anything? Always run APUP again before posting to have
the latest data.

I don't know if this was aimed at me, but there's your answer:

high5, on Apr 7 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

Last night, I decided to re-download all of the above listed releases to and see what the outcome would be. I left apup to download everything overnight. The download went without a hiccup, but it *still* shows as unofficial, as you can see from here:
http://vedran.hocuin...ap/ap_unoff.png

So, everything downloaded is the latest.

As far as strays are concerned, I'll look into it when I get some time.

[Cristiano]

oh, i've probably forgot to sign this one. i will do that tonight (12h from now).

thanks for the warning

[]s

[_def_x_]

Cristiano, on Apr 7 2009, 03:48 AM, said:

oh, i've probably forgot to sign this one...

Sign what release?

I created the same release based on High5's md5 (exactly) and it passed and is Official - see post 37.

Mike