BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 67d, 0h, 43m | CPU: 65% | MEM: 5454MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:57 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7995
CaptainPeanut wrote:
mrpijey wrote:
Hmm, another modified ISO... what's been modified in this one? Or it is once again only the WIM that is original? Two pages of discussion about this without anyone even asking if this ISO is legit? All nonsense without any real information about this build. Wow....

Looks like you have an extraordinary eye capable of seeing a modified ISO from 200 miles away while others don't care.
Congratulations, merpyj.

Well, at least I can see which can't be said about you... you do know we look for legit betas and releases here right? And not just your next warez fix? But you're apparently more interested in increasing your beta release count rather than going for legit and proper releases. Good for you. But we're not all like you. Fortunately. And your nickname twisting is childish and lame. Grow up.

hounsell wrote:
Maybe it's because most members aren't extremely anal about that sort of thing. The files are good, the certs check out. There is no evidence of any deliberate tampering. It's probably just another case of the leaked not using the right tools to dump the image. If you find one genuinely wrong thing about this build, let us know and we can debate legitimacy.

God, a build leaks and apparently it's more important that we find holes in the leak to bitch about rather than celebrate a chance to experience a new build. Is it any wonder BA is a less compelling beta community than it once was?

Well, too bad then that "most members" (I guess you know them all to make such educated statistical claim?) are more interested in a warez release than caring if this release is legit and true. It's not very hard to see if this ISO has been modified, even so slightly. So you want evidence of tampering? Fine:

Code:
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ONE MICROSOFT WAY, REDMOND WA 98052, (425) 882-8080                                                      CDIMAGE 2.53 (01/01/2005 TM)                                                                                                                                                                                                                   201308101022260020130810102226000000000000000000 0000000000000000  ULTRAISO 9.5.3.2900 ┬§"


This is the ISO header. Geez, didn't know Microsoft used UltraISO now to modify their ISOs, so I guess you're right, there's no evidence of tampering at all. None at all. Next! And BA would be more compelling if we actually bothered more with release authenticity rather than just posting pages after pages with "wow, new beta, awesome, thnxbai!" quality posts. And no, the ISO is not untouched. A toddler with basic info about ISO or file structure could tell you that.

dw5304 wrote:
...

Thank you. This shows at least the files inside might be legit, now to check what was modified in the ISO... yes, there's been an EI.CFG injection, which explains the header and wrong dates/times on the file. So it will be removed and ISO cleaned before release...

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:04 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Ooooooh no! A rogue ei.cfg.

I never said the ISO was untouched - I said the build was not tampered with. Adding a surplus configuration file changes nothing. And let's face it, if they'd used the right tools, it'd have passed your superficial purity test. As no doubt proved by the fact you'll now rebuild the ISO with the correct tools and declare it pure enough for BA despite it being no clearer that this how an original ISO would be.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:06 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts
4268
mrpijey wrote:
...are more interested in a warez release than caring if this release is legit and true.


Well, most of the times we can't make a warez release clean, if it's already been tampered, in my opinion. It would just be a remake then. Warez .NFO files even bear some historical information about the original scene release.

_________________
Longhorn Packet 1.21 - Solves most of the problems with Longhorn Setup
[GUIDE] How to dump clean/untouched images from CD discs
Longhorn Music Album (FLAC) | 523.31 MB | 17 tracks | Donators Discussion Forum


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:14 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
YouArePwned is of course, correct.

You say that the ei.cfg has been added. You know this how? It has a different date/time stamp? Sure. It's been modified. But I'd say a replacement is far more likely than an addition. I've seen few untouched MS releases without ei.cfg, if any. A more likely explanation is that it was originally a core ISO, or something along those lines, and they modified the ISO to "upgrade" it to a Pro, as this is the SKU with more interest.

Sure, you could be right, but there's *no way* you can prove it one way or the other. And for any person who actually cares about betas, they won't care in the slightest. The ISO has both SKUs. Nothing is lost or gained with an ei.cfg, it makes no difference beside preselecting an SKU. Anyone who wants to try the other SKU will know to simply remove ei.cfg anyway.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:26 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:39 pm

Posts
28

Location
Norwich, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Windows 3.11
I agree with mrpijey that we should at least try to restore the ISO to its original state. I think it will be easy, as the WIM seems unmodified. As far as I know during my short time here, BetaArchive has always had mostly originals. So we can all work in restoring everything to its original form for the community :)

_________________
Image

wtnet


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:32 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7995
As always we've aimed at getting an original ISO, and a modified as second. So there's nothing wrong with detecting modified ISOs and trying to restore them. But hey, let's modify all of them, add cracks, timebombs and whatnot junk to them? Since it doesn't matter you say, it's all just warez and let's just release all the junk releases we can, as much as we can, because hey, the release count matters right? Heck, let's re-release "Windows 99" and all the other fakes while we're at it, because we don't need no pointless original stuff here do we? The reason those were removed is because we don't want hacks, fakes and junk releases, and we don't want custom stuff either.

A lot of ISOs on this site are modified, but we try to restore them. What people do with them after they have been downloaded from here is none of our concern, they can mod and edit it to their hearts content. But they will get an ISO that has been unmodified or at least restored by removing all the rogue files and stuff that does not belong with the release.

It's never been a question about ONLY having 100% original releases, but it's an aim. We will never reach it, but we should at least try. And if some of you don't care about it, then fine, don't, but this is how BA has operated since the start. And it's not going to change.

The ISO will be restored, EI.CFG will be removed and the header will be stripped of ULTRAISO headers. And then it will be released on BA.

Also, thanks for that nice Mao post. I don't really care about it so it doesn't affect me the slightest. It will affect you however. So who's the loser in the end? Not me. Bans and warnings will follow, thanks for cleaning up the site.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:35 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts
4268
mrpijey wrote:
But hey, let's modify all of them, add cracks, timebombs and whatnot junk to them? Since it doesn't matter you say, it's all just warez and let's just release all the junk releases we can, as much as we can, because hey, the release count matters right?


The cracks only remove the protection of the original purpose of the builds - temporary beta-testing. Since we are preserving builds that were not mean to be preserved that way, why not just as well make a separate archive category just for the "cracks".

_________________
Longhorn Packet 1.21 - Solves most of the problems with Longhorn Setup
[GUIDE] How to dump clean/untouched images from CD discs
Longhorn Music Album (FLAC) | 523.31 MB | 17 tracks | Donators Discussion Forum


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:45 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7995
Because we don't want cracks or any kind of copy protection removal tools on the FTP. It's as simple as that. In a recent Win8 case I at least added a delta patch to an ISO that was unbootable (since the release was incomplete) and a member mixed builds to make it work and allow people to test out the beta, that can be allowed for the purpose of booting and installing an otherwise unbootable or uninstallable beta. But removing the natural copy protections is a no-no.

But this is a discussion for an another thread as this is the topic for build 9471 x64.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:46 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:02 pm

Posts
5750
mrpijey wrote:
But this is a discussion for an another thread as this is the topic for build 9471 x64.


There was a topic, dedicated to that very subject, but I think someone deleted it... Gee, I wonder who.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:48 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts
4268
mrpijey wrote:
Because we don't want cracks or any kind of copy protection removal tools on the FTP. It's as simple as that. In a recent Win8 case I at least added a delta patch to an ISO that was unbootable (since the release was incomplete) and a member mixed builds to make it work and allow people to test out the beta, that can be allowed for the purpose of booting and installing an otherwise unbootable or uninstallable beta. But removing the natural copy protections is a no-no.

But this is a discussion for an another thread as this is the topic for build 9471 x64.


Offtopic Comment
I don't see why "we" don't want that. TIMECRK.EXE, being a very old timebomb patch for Memphis build, only patches IO.SYS. I see no problem in keeping that. Same goes for TweakNT.

_________________
Longhorn Packet 1.21 - Solves most of the problems with Longhorn Setup
[GUIDE] How to dump clean/untouched images from CD discs
Longhorn Music Album (FLAC) | 523.31 MB | 17 tracks | Donators Discussion Forum


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:50 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7995
No, that was a pointless poll about something that wasn't relevant for this site, if you had paid attention that is.

Enough of the arguments, if you want to legitimately discuss the why's and whynot's of saving cracks and hacks then make a new thread about it.

Back on topic.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:54 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:02 pm

Posts
5750
It was clearly relevant, because people could express their opinions in it regarding the current situation we have on the FTP. But as usual, anything that slightly criticizes the administration and rules of BA and it's FTP is declared irrelevant and offtopic. I'm sorry to say this, but you are indeed acting as a dictator. Even though that topic probably wouldn't change anything, it was a way for us to express our opinions - something, that is prohibited only in dictator states.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:54 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm

Posts
2035

Location
Czechia
DeFacto wrote:
It was clearly relevant, because people could express their opinions in it regarding the current situation we have on the FTP. But as usual, anything that slightly criticizes the administration and rules of BA and it's FTP is declared irrelevant and offtopic. I'm sorry to say this, but you are indeed acting as a dictator. Even though that topic probably wouldn't change anything, it was a way for us to express our opinions - something, that is prohibited only in dictator states.

I agree with this statement.

_________________
AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!

Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:58 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:19 pm

Posts
1830

Location
shell32.dll
DeFacto wrote:
It was clearly relevant, because people could express their opinions in it regarding the current situation we have on the FTP. But as usual, anything that slightly criticizes the administration and rules of BA and it's FTP is declared irrelevant and offtopic. I'm sorry to say this, but you are indeed acting as a dictator. Even though that topic probably wouldn't change anything, it was a way for us to express our opinions - something, that is prohibited only in dictator states.


Agree 100%

_________________
Windows Defender for great justice! Bugs are an international trading company. I need to defeat the anti-debugging and obfuscation methods. It wasn't for Intel's absurd ability to load in ie6. Why even waste time with people in an envelope?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:03 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:03 pm

Posts
506

Location
Czechia

Favourite OS
Development Release #5
DeFacto wrote:
It was clearly relevant, because people could express their opinions in it regarding the current situation we have on the FTP. But as usual, anything that slightly criticizes the administration and rules of BA and it's FTP is declared irrelevant and offtopic. I'm sorry to say this, but you are indeed acting as a dictator. Even though that topic probably wouldn't change anything, it was a way for us to express our opinions - something, that is prohibited only in dictator states.


I'd say I agree with you, but it will be taken as another personal attack, so:
You should stop with it, I clearly posted the thread only to troll and I have no interest in betas whasoever.
- JaGoTu

_________________
Windows TEN - Totally Erroneous Numbering
Always watching you...


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:19 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:34 pm

Posts
1559
...
mrpijey, you made a problem out of nothing to be honest.

You previously said that you'd like to have originals rather than non-original ones, but not if original is not available. When it's small portion of header was edited it's completely refused? Even if all other content are fine?

You could just keep the edited one, until a real original one comes up. It was unnecessary to start all this problem for just small header was edited. Just pointing it out and marking it as edited on BA FTP is enough.

Just my 2 cents.

_________________
%1


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:30 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2017

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- Ahmed Jebara: He never said he's completely refusing the Build. Where did you get that from? His point was solely that noone apparently cared about verifying the ISO and seeing if it was modified in any way. People simply misunderstood a plead to verify an ISO for modifications and report all of them so it can be reconstructed as much as possible to an unmodified form, as an outright refusal to accept the Build.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:33 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:02 pm

Posts
5750
Well here's a newsflash for you: reconstructing/fixing/whatever the ISO is also done by modifying it. So you're basically modifying the modified stuff, which is then released on the FTP. By your standards, the only material, worthy of being on the FTP, is only that straight from MS. Everything else, even reconstructed images, are actually modified, and thus unfit for long-term storage.

Excuse my poor brain capacity, but I don't follow your logic here.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:38 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:19 pm

Posts
1830

Location
shell32.dll
DeFacto wrote:
Excuse my poor brain capacity, but I don't follow your logic here.


I think nobody does tbh

_________________
Windows Defender for great justice! Bugs are an international trading company. I need to defeat the anti-debugging and obfuscation methods. It wasn't for Intel's absurd ability to load in ie6. Why even waste time with people in an envelope?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:41 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
2017

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- DeFacto: The intent is to reconstruct and then store the reconstruction until a better copy becomes available. Of course a reconstruction is also modified but it's still less modified than the original modified version, and that's the point.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:42 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:02 pm

Posts
5750
So, how come that 3.1.68 was deleted then? Why not reconstruct it and/or store it until a better version is found?

Meanwhile, 34e remains on the FTP.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:43 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts
4268
Battler wrote:
- DeFacto: The intent is to reconstruct and then store the reconstruction until a better copy becomes available. Of course a reconstruction is also modified but it's still less modified than the original modified version, and that's the point.


In my opinion, even if it's less modified, it doesn't make it better. The NFO files are removed, but as I already said, they have important information, like where the build may have leaked from. Same goes for timebomb cracks (I'm not talking about RTM Activators, like KMS).

_________________
Longhorn Packet 1.21 - Solves most of the problems with Longhorn Setup
[GUIDE] How to dump clean/untouched images from CD discs
Longhorn Music Album (FLAC) | 523.31 MB | 17 tracks | Donators Discussion Forum


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:44 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Battler wrote:
- DeFacto: The intent is to reconstruct and then store the reconstruction until a better copy becomes available. Of course a reconstruction is also modified but it's still less modified than the original modified version, and that's the point.


Except in this case, can you actually prove that?

Sure, fix the headers. But mrpijey is also removing ei.cfg. There is no way to know that it shipped without ei.cfg, only that the ei.cfg on the ISO is not "original". Modifications are being done on an arbitrary basis, rather than based on cold hard evidence.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:45 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:19 pm

Posts
1830

Location
shell32.dll
Modifying something modified again does not make it less modified.

_________________
Windows Defender for great justice! Bugs are an international trading company. I need to defeat the anti-debugging and obfuscation methods. It wasn't for Intel's absurd ability to load in ie6. Why even waste time with people in an envelope?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: [LEAK] Windows 8.1 (Blue) build 9471 x64 English        Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:48 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:02 pm

Posts
5750
hounsell wrote:
Except in this case, can you actually prove that?

Sure, fix the headers. But mrpijey is also removing ei.cfg. There is no way to know that it shipped without ei.cfg, only that the ei.cfg on the ISO is not "original". Modifications are being done on an arbitrary basis, rather than based on cold hard evidence.


What I think is going on, is that he simply makes the changes he wants to, ignoring your rather accurate advice yet again...


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2020

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS