The Unofficial XYplorer Archive

[TheQwerty]

Copied my copy of 13.80.0126 to Incoming, but you'll have to do the hashing/renaming yourself.

[Marco]

Thank you, TheQwerty!
Both versions are now available, as you can see in the release notes

Code: Select all

...
    XYplorer 13.80.0126 [2014-03-20 19.24.14] [5c617a6a28bab5851165eb5b60088c9cca1b1096dd720186ee8c765cf2e925b3 3ed6b37e5840357c2087ff57f30f9aab87b50c8ba13570cd5569e6e2d1e1e46b].zip    →    Courtesy of TheQwerty
    XYplorer 13.80.0126 [2014-03-18 07.03.20] [45697c4787339b9189cb8dffaea2ae99755f685e8f4da5d7de8155db10f29675 3ed6b37e5840357c2087ff57f30f9aab87b50c8ba13570cd5569e6e2d1e1e46b].zip    →    Courtesy of Enternal;	***REPACKED***
...

The hashes of XYplorer.exe are the same.
LittleBiG, you're still more than welcome to compare the hashes with the build on your work computer, if you want to. If so, I would then add a "Peer review by LittleBiG" comment, as I did in the past.

[Enternal]

Haha nice!

On a side note, Marco, do you think it's really necessary to do a SHA256? I think MD5 might be more than enough and won't have any issues with collision. Mainly it's the problem with the length of the file name since they're quite long!

[Marco]

Yeah, I know they're long. The problem is I'm not concerned with collisions per se in filenames - using file version, compilation times and two hashes makes collisions unlikely.
I'm more concerned about file integrity. Call me paranoid or whatever, but as you all know NSA hands are everywhere. I think they could tamper with a build and a single MD5 could show no difference. Don't ask my why they should do so, but they sure have the means to do so if they wanted. I feel safer by using a double sha256: I don't think it's possible to modify the XY exe without changing the resulting hash (first collision) and also without changing the hash of the zip container (second collision). That would mean a double collision in sha256, keeping both a zip and an exe fully functional!

[Enternal]

Yeah, I know they're long. The problem is I'm not concerned with collisions per se in filenames - using file version, compilation times and two hashes makes collisions unlikely.
I'm more concerned about file integrity. Call me paranoid or whatever, but as you all know NSA hands are everywhere. I think they could tamper with a build and a single MD5 could show no difference. Don't ask my why they should do so, but they sure have the means to do so if they wanted. I feel safer by using a double sha256: I don't think it's possible to modify the XY exe without changing the resulting hash (first collision) and also without changing the hash of the zip container (second collision). That would mean a double collision in sha256, keeping both a zip and an exe fully functional!

Hahaha! That would be one amazing thing if they can do such a thing! But yeah I can sort of understand that feeling. Although if you really want everything functional, you should also use a par file of sorts like MultiPar or Ice ECC (MultiPar is up-to-date while ICE ECC is not really updated anymore I think. They both use Reed Solomon codes for their function though):
http://multipar.eu/ (European Mirror. It's a Japanese Program)
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA021385/ (Japanese page but in English)
http://www.ice-graphics.com/ICEECC/IndexE.html

These programs are what I also used when I used to back up terabytes of Japanese pop culture stuff and other stuff onto DVDs.

[Marco]

Oh, thank you for the advice!

[LittleBiG]

Thank you, TheQwerty!
Both versions are now available, as you can see in the release notes

Code: Select all

...
    XYplorer 13.80.0126 [2014-03-20 19.24.14] [5c617a6a28bab5851165eb5b60088c9cca1b1096dd720186ee8c765cf2e925b3 3ed6b37e5840357c2087ff57f30f9aab87b50c8ba13570cd5569e6e2d1e1e46b].zip    →    Courtesy of TheQwerty
    XYplorer 13.80.0126 [2014-03-18 07.03.20] [45697c4787339b9189cb8dffaea2ae99755f685e8f4da5d7de8155db10f29675 3ed6b37e5840357c2087ff57f30f9aab87b50c8ba13570cd5569e6e2d1e1e46b].zip    →    Courtesy of Enternal;	***REPACKED***
...

The hashes of XYplorer.exe are the same.
LittleBiG, you're still more than welcome to compare the hashes with the build on your work computer, if you want to. If so, I would then add a "Peer review by LittleBiG" comment, as I did in the past.

I can confirm the originality of the TheQwerty's version.

Code: Select all

File: xyplorer_13.80.0126_beta_noinstall.zip
Size: 3,74 MB (3 917 792 bytes)
Date: 2014.03.21 8:02:20

SHA-256  5c617a6a28bab5851165eb5b60088c9cca1b1096dd720186ee8c765cf2e925b3

[Marco]

Awesome!
Just updated the release notes on the first post.

[lukescammell]

I've got some of the missing versions, but I'm afraid that I expanded to a version named folder and compressed a whole bunch at a time. If you are still interested, how would you like these?

I've even got some old ones in the v5-9 range that I UPX compressed, but other than that, the files were unchanged.

[Marco]

Hi lukescammell,
you're more than welcome to contribute with your additions! For the expanded-and-compressed builds there's no problem, in the dump I place a ***REPACKED*** note on the side in cases like this. And for the even older ones, great!
You can contact me (even in private, if you prefer so) to decide if and how you want to add your versions.

[Marco]

I missed 14.10.0101
Is there someone who can help?

[TheQwerty]

Done

[Marco]

Thank you friend!!!

[Marco]

Updated the Archive dump - I was a bit behind because of study.
Also, lights went out this morning and couldn't grab 14.20.0102. Does someone have it?

[nerdweed]

I should be having it. Will pass it on in the evening

Edit: Isn't it the latest beta. It should be available on the beta page. Unless you meant 101 (i am having it as well)