Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About IsoBuster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64
  1. The final version is (finally) out: http://www.isobuster.com/news/isobuster_3.5_release_notes From now on these changes are available in all future versions, no need to work with test or beta versions anymore. Merry Christmas !
  2. FYI I released a beta version that also includes all these changes. I'll post here when the final gets released as well (because then the beta version is removed again).
  3. Then you let me know and I'll see what I can do It already works for NTFS btw, but not for other FS. Frankly it's not that high a priority anyway as I see it. It's just about finding another volume inside the image file. The option to expand FAT from Boot image files also only works for FAT btw !! The icons ... maybe later but I'm not promising I think this project is sort of done unless issues are found or more exceptions can be implemented.
  4. Did you have the chance to download ? I will removed the file soon. Cheers.
  5. Hello, Small update. This version tests a bit stricter for a FAT volume (so not just the 0x55AA signature) Nothing else changed. I didn't really test but I'm confident I decided to leave the "hard coded" option checked by default because it also includes the test for "ISOLINUX" and the name change of "BootImage.img" to "IsoLinux.img".
  6. I see ! I'll turn it off by default then. I'll leave the GUI stuff in place for now.
  7. I see .. so the hardcoded option is not really needed ? Well ... I 'll leave it in, for when people uncheck the 'mkisofs' test but leave the hardcoded checkbox on. Maybe I'll have to add another hardcoded check again at a later date.
  8. True ! At that stage that is all I test yes. I could look into a stricter test (I'm not promising and it may be next week before I find time for that).
  9. I uploaded a new test version - Right mouse click a boot image and choose "Properties". On the second tab you can see how the size was determined. Possible values are: Bootcatalog / MBR / BPB / Next Image / Mkisofs / Hard coded (e.g. old ISOLINUX) / Via another file system - I added a number of new checkboxes to the options menu so that you can determine what method will be used to determine the size of the boot image.
  10. Again no notification email ... I wonder what changed ? Anyway, The size of the file is what is recorded in the catalog OR what is found via one of the alternative methods. IF the file is split in extents, the first part is from the start address (LBA) till the address where the MBR/BPB was found. The second extent's size is the file-size minus the size of the first extent. Basically the combined size of both extents is the file-size. I honestly do not know what you mean... could you please elaborate?
  11. Strange, I never got an email from the system alerting me of a response. Good that I came to have a look (something to remember for the future should I not respond) The image with the boot info-table triggers IsoBuster to read all its sectors, to be able to determine if the checksum matches. While doing this, since all blocks are read anyway, IsoBuster checks for MBR/BPB signatures in every block, and it seems to find them in the second block of this image, hence why the two extents. It should not make a difference, since it's still one file with a correct length, it just happened to be split up in two extents. The file without the table, does not trigger IsoBuster to read every sector (there is no need), hence no MBR or BPB is found, hence why no extents are created. When I have time to implement the checkboxes in the GUI (options) I plan to also allow the boot info-table size data without verifying the checksum. That will be faster, as not all sectors need to be read. It will also have the same effect then as the image without the info-table, because not all sectors will be read. The size may be wrong then, but it's up to the user to put checksum checking on or not. I'm not adding columns. Implementation is then for all objects in all situations and this only makes sense for boot images, a minute part of the functionality. I contemplated putting something in the properties window as well for this, but have not done so (yet). Yes, do some tests if you can. Cheers.
  12. I found a bit of time today to make a new test version Changes: 1) Following change was reverted again to previous state: 2) I added the suggested function to scan other file systems for a file with same LBA and then use the size of that file. Initiate this scan via a right mouse click on a Boot Image file (PS. limited to only ISO9660 file systems and derivatives (Joliet / Rock Ridge)) 3) I added the ability to manually edit the properties of a Boot Image (address, length, name). Also the extents if there are any. Normally this functionality falls under a [Professional] license but I unlocked it for Boot Images. I hope this helps ?
  13. I uploaded a new test version. For one the size is stored in the mkisofs structure, for the other it isn't. I noticed that at offset (3*512) inside the first block there is a FAT file system as well. So I extended the MBR/BPB check to look at every 512 byte offset in the first block and determine the size. The effect is that there is a plausible size now, based on the FAT image, yet the size in reality seems to be much smaller. This is annoying. It also means the MBR/BPB test is highly unreliable for some type loaders/images. I will revert this test again in next version and only check 2048 byte aligned. I did not see this variant yet but have it implemented. Test if you can as I can not see if it works ? However, based on the xls you sent, the length will be a block too much for v1.60 ? I'll look into it, maybe on Wednesday. Tomorrow I don't think I will find the time.
  14. Hi, Ok, I made a new test version (Beta version this time, as that makes more sense) To be downloaded (for a little while) here Changes: - Several rewrites internally to reduce the read count, and improve things, hopefully noting broke. - Fixed the mkisofs patch which means that now a lot more Linux related boot images will probably be listed with their proper length - In case "ISOLINUX" is found in the first block of a loader, and the bootcatalog doesn't contain a name for the boot image, the listed file is called "IsoLinux" - Since the bootcatalog file has no time and date, now "N/A" is shown for its time and date. At this point we need to determine what still doesn't work and if there are reasonable workarounds for those situations. I also need to find time to add a few more checkboxes to the options for these different, extra, tests.
  • Create New...