Windows 7 SP1 RTM 7601.17514.101119-1850 leaked

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by torko26, Jan 14, 2011.

  1. Enigma256

    Enigma256 MDL Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2011
    357
    309
    10
    Hehe. Well, if something takes, for example, a millennium years a break, you can say that it's impossible to break it. If something else takes a million years to break, it's also impossible, but even more so. (And breaking MD5 and SHA-1 will take a much longer than that, BTW.)
     
  2. Stannieman

    Stannieman MDL Guru

    Sep 4, 2009
    2,228
    1,817
    90
    Just tried it, but since I don't use the options to export the hashes to files and I don't need to check multiple files at once, I'll stay with hashtab.
    Hashtabs eats hashcheck when it comes down to speed here.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. Enigma256

    Enigma256 MDL Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2011
    357
    309
    10
    That's impossible. Hashing is a disk-limited activity, and is limited entirely be how quickly your disk can deliver the data. However, recently-accessed files are cached in your RAM (this is Windows caching the file in system RAM, not the hard disk cache... this is the original file system cache that was around since NT3 and is separate from Superfetch). So if you hash a file, and then re-hash the same file, the re-hash will be many times faster faster than the initial hash. Or if you hash a file that was recently read (e.g., a file that you just copied), it will be many times faster than a file that you haven't touched in a while. Try your test on two files that you have not accessed, located on the disk in a similar physical location (since files on the outer edges of a hard disk--ones at the "start" of the disk00--are read much faster than those in the inner portions--the "end" of the disk), and with similar amounts of fragmentation. And I guarantee that you won't see a difference. :p
     
  4. rEApEAt

    rEApEAt MDL Senior Member

    Jan 5, 2011
    356
    170
    10
    Fine. But as long as the hash has to be calculated upon a certain amount of data, the CPU strenght must be considered as an important variable in the hashing process.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. Myrrh

    Myrrh MDL Expert

    Nov 26, 2008
    1,509
    629
    60
    Yes, but even the slowest CPU would have finished the calculation for one chunk of data before the drive controller is anywhere near ready to deliver the next chunk.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. rEApEAt

    rEApEAt MDL Senior Member

    Jan 5, 2011
    356
    170
    10
    Ok. That's a novelty for me.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. Enigma256

    Enigma256 MDL Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2011
    357
    309
    10
    No, because with sequential reads like what you get with hashing, the file system will anticipate future requests and fetch ahead. So you are doing your calculation while the disk is working, and as long as the disk takes longer than the CPU, the speed will be determined entirely by the disk. But if you want, you can compare the % CPU used by HashTab and HashCheck (they're about the same).

    Edit: And what Myrrh said (started writing this post before I saw him post his)
     
  8. Stannieman

    Stannieman MDL Guru

    Sep 4, 2009
    2,228
    1,817
    90
    What I did was:
    - I made sure the machine was idle and both apps are calculating the same hashes. (crc32, md4, md5 and sha1)
    - Hash the file once with hashtab, once with hashcheck, to avoid things as the programs remembering hashes for already done fiels, cashes etc.
    - Right click the 2.9GB iso, opened propperties and clicked the hashtab tab, didn't touch the mouse afterwards =>55 seconds. Then I closed the window.
    - Opened the propperties again and clicked hashcheck tab, didn't touch the mouse afterwards =>76 seconds. Then I closed the window.
    - Opened the propperties again and clicked hashtab tab, didn't touch the mouse afterwards =>56 seconds. Then I closed the window.
    - Opened the propperties again and clicked hashcheck tab, didn't touch the mouse afterwards =>60 seconds. Then I closed the window.
    - Opened the propperties again and clicked hashtab tab, didn't touch the mouse afterwards =>56 seconds. Then I closed the window.
    - Opened the propperties again and clicked hashcheck tab, didn't touch the mouse afterwards =>104!! seconds.

    So in all tries hashtab was faster.
    Maybe it has to do with how each app handles the calculation of multiple hash types.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. tcntad

    tcntad MDL Guru

    Oct 26, 2009
    4,632
    1,651
    150
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. Kouryu

    Kouryu MDL Senior Member

    Jan 19, 2011
    423
    132
    10
    no, not the MSDN one.... the one from wzor a couple of weeks ago, yes
    if anything, I wan to know what the MSDN hash is for that one.. somehow I don't believe the wzor one is the same as the MSDN release... it has this backup folder in there, wtf?
     
  11. iHacker

    iHacker MDL Novice

    Apr 23, 2010
    35
    1
    0
  12. Enigma256

    Enigma256 MDL Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2011
    357
    309
    10
    It's winusb.sys, not .dll.
     
  13. DanieI

    DanieI MDL Novice

    Aug 3, 2009
    4
    0
    0
    @iHacker
    luckman212 meant winusb.sys. Your screenshot is for winusb.dll.


    @anyone
    Any information on the integrated MSDN/TechNet ISO's of other languages?
    Maybe 2~3 weeks?
     
  14. iHacker

    iHacker MDL Novice

    Apr 23, 2010
    35
    1
    0
    #1877 iHacker, Feb 18, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2011
    thanks enignma and daniel,
    im such an idiot.

    yea mine says beta too.

    all this talk about wzor possibly faking hashes got me worried, lol.


    can anyone post the MD4, MD5, and size (bytes) for windows 7 ultimate x64 from msdn?
     
  15. yro

    yro MDL Addicted

    Jul 26, 2009
    645
    127
    30
    Can anyone upload in megaupload the Windows 7 with SP1 x86 official iso?

    I cannot download from torrent here :(
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  16. Kouryu

    Kouryu MDL Senior Member

    Jan 19, 2011
    423
    132
    10
    there are already megaupload links to the leaks... since they are the same as the MSDN officials, just get those instead
     
  17. yro

    yro MDL Addicted

    Jul 26, 2009
    645
    127
    30
    show me the links, show me where..

    in this topic somebody post the megaupload links for the .torrent files...

    i need the megaupload links for the windows 7 with sp1 official iso.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...