SetACL 2.1.3.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

It downloaded fine for me, no registration or anything.

These file-hosting sites OFTEN require an ad-blocker to prevent FALSE tabs from popping up that DECEIVE you into thinking that tab is the download.
Sometimes, it's not really even an "ad", but some form of 'race condition' where their server directed you to the WRONG FILE (intentional malware distribution?).

PRACTICE SAFE HEX !!!  That's what we used to call it.

Sometimes these free file-hosting "intermission ads" will pop up a FALSE tab.
Keep it open, return to the original, click the download button again, keep doing that until you see the file size and file name that you are EXPECTING to see.

To be honest, I do not have a clue how "this" file-hosting site behaves WITHOUT my ad-blocking in place.
I only know that HISTORICALLY, these file-hosting cites will behave ONE WAY here at home, another way AT WORK, and still yet an entirely DIFFERENT WAY at my brother's house.
All dependent upon the computers ad-blocking methods.

BE CAUTIOUS OF ANY TABS THAT POP UP, THEY MAY BE THERE JUST TO *DECEIVE* YOU INTO CLICKING !!!

 

Edited April 6 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, Andalu said:

SetACL.exe is 301.056 byte

Agreed.

[Andalu]

I tried downloading the .zip file again using Firefox 52.9.1 after disabling all the security extensions I normally use when browsing the internet, and indeed, as @NotHereToPlayGames pointed out, clicking “Download!” opens a new tab separate from the main one—not the one

from which you can download the actual file. Furthermore, in my test, after blocking the first download via firewall, another “fake” tab opened:

 

I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that file-hosting site could cause this behavior, so, to avoid any issues, I’ve removed the link to download SetACL.zip.

 

@justacruzr2

I hope you didn't run into any problems with your system after downloading the fake file. If you weren't successful in downloading the valid SetACL.zip file, send me a private message and I'll find a way to get it to you.

 

Edited April 6 by Andalu

[NotHereToPlayGames]

This really is something that EVERY user of the "'net" MUST LEARN !!!

PRACTICE SAFE HEX !!!

You (collective pronoun, not any "one person") MUST learn to RECOGNIZE a "fake tab", a "fake download button", a "redirected popup".

OR - you *WILL* find yourself a decade or two from now as one of those "innocents" *SCAMMED* out of THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS because you clicked on something that "looked real".

PRACTICE SAFE HEX !!!

[justacruzr2]

12 hours ago, Andalu said:

I tried downloading the .zip file again using Firefox 52.9.1 after disabling all the security extensions I normally use when browsing the internet, and indeed, as @NotHereToPlayGames pointed out, clicking “Download!” opens a new tab separate from the main one—not the one

from which you can download the actual file. Furthermore, in my test, after blocking the first download via firewall, another “fake” tab opened:

 

I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that file-hosting site could cause this behavior, so, to avoid any issues, I’ve removed the link to download SetACL.zip.

 

@justacruzr2

I hope you didn't run into any problems with your system after downloading the fake file. If you weren't successful in downloading the valid SetACL.zip file, send me a private message and I'll find a way to get it to you.

 

No problems.  Is there some other way to transfer that file over?

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

This really is something that EVERY user of the "'net" MUST LEARN !!!

PRACTICE SAFE HEX !!!

You (collective pronoun, not any "one person") MUST learn to RECOGNIZE a "fake tab", a "fake download button", a "redirected popup".

OR - you *WILL* find yourself a decade or two from now as one of those "innocents" *SCAMMED* out of THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS because you clicked on something that "looked real".

PRACTICE SAFE HEX !!!

Thanks.  I downloaded 2 files because I thought after that it would let me proceed to what I was really after but I know better than to install anything that doesn't look right.  So I deleted them.  There was no other download button other than that green one.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

You should be fine.

Pretty much all "popular" *FREE* hosting cites have their issues (you get what you pay for).

Generally, NO HARM in downloading an incorrect file, just don't execute it. 

And when the first download PER SAFE HEX INTUITION was not correct, just download again, and again, and again until the "you get what you pay for" hosting cite finally coughs up the file you ASKED FOR.

Ad-blocking to prevent the popup only gets you so far.  It's still SAFE HEX INTUITION that has to be so embedded into "browsing psyche" that even a ZERO-DAY that sneaks past each and every ad-block defense wall you have still DOES NOT CATCH YOU OFF GUARD.

[user57]

is there a solution to the lost programm problem ? i remember that problem - in the very past my hdd and the cd gone out

and i lost a certain upgrade i liked, so that time like 1999 or something i was wonderung if there is a company that provides lost files

 

now we have 2026 and there is still no solution to this ?

 

that .net had a hype a while wasnt it because vs2010 ? for vc6 or sometimes called vs6 it was MFC, sidewise there was visual basic 

those requied certain things to be installed first like dll´s or something , but VB only needed that like 1 time 

i didnt hear of .net a while maybe because they have c++17 c++21 and so

[justacruzr2]

Just now, user57 said:

is there a solution to the lost programm problem ? i remember that problem - in the very past my hdd and the cd gone out

and i lost a certain upgrade i liked, so that time like 1999 or something i was wonderung if there is a company that provides lost files

 

now we have 2026 and there is still no solution to this ?

 

that .net had a hype a while wasnt it because vs2010 ? for vc6 or sometimes called vs6 it was MFC, sidewise there was visual basic 

those requied certain things to be installed first like dll´s or something , but VB only needed that like 1 time 

i didnt hear of .net a while maybe because they have c++17 c++21 and so

the reason it requires .net 4 is that helge was transitioning from win32 to .net coding.  version 2.1.3 is win32 and supports xp.  version 3 is all .net but has a bug problem with the os so it doesn't work on xp

[justacruzr2]

Just now, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You should be fine.

Pretty much all "popular" *FREE* hosting cites have their issues (you get what you pay for).

Generally, NO HARM in downloading an incorrect file, just don't execute it. 

And when the first download PER SAFE HEX INTUITION was not correct, just download again, and again, and again until the "you get what you pay for" hosting cite finally coughs up the file you ASKED FOR.

Ad-blocking to prevent the popup only gets you so far.  It's still SAFE HEX INTUITION that has to be so embedded into "browsing psyche" that even a ZERO-DAY that sneaks past each and every ad-block defense wall you have still DOES NOT CATCH YOU OFF GUARD.

It's one of the things i hate.  almost every download site wants to download and install some download helper app or something.  It wasn't always that way.  i remember when you could just download the file and be done with it.  I'm using Supermium (Chrome) and i thought add blocking was built in.  isn't it?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, justacruzr2 said:

I'm using Supermium (Chrome) and i thought add blocking was built in.  isn't it?

No, ad-blocking is not built in.  Brave (extremely bloated in my opinion) does include ad-blocking.

Chrome (and all forks of Chrome) do have "ad privacy" settings, but nothing anywhere near ad-BLOCKING.

 

You can test your ad-blocking score on sites like (there are others, of course):  https://adblock-tester.com/

Scores of 90 or higher are considered good.

 

Just-downloaded as-is most-recent Supermium WITHOUT ANY AD-BLOCKING:

 

For reference, Chromium WITH AD-BLOCKING (probably could be improved, this was just my default config):

Edited April 7 by NotHereToPlayGames

[justacruzr2]

Just now, NotHereToPlayGames said:

No, ad-blocking is not built in.  Brave (extremely bloated in my opinion) does include ad-blocking.

Chrome (and all forks of Chrome) do have "ad privacy" settings, but nothing anywhere near ad-BLOCKING.

 

You can test your ad-blocking score on sites like (there are others, of course):  https://adblock-tester.com/

Scores of 90 or higher are considered good.

 

Just-downloaded as-is most-recent Supermium WITHOUT ANY AD-BLOCKING:

 

For reference, Chromium WITH AD-BLOCKING (probably could be improved, this was just my default config):

Thanks for the heads up.  What add blocker do you recommend that will work with Chromium?  I just went to that add blocker test site and got a 52/100.  That's still not good.  

Edited April 8 by justacruzr2

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 hours ago, justacruzr2 said:

What add blocker do you recommend that will work with Chromium?

Well, um, that's kind of a complex question.

The easy answer - a heavily self-modified uBlock Origin version 1.52.2 [Sep 21, 2023] (uBlock is currently at version 1.70.x).

 

The complex answer (and every bullet point is going to have opinions on "my side" and just as 'emphatic' opinions on the "other side", NOT MY PROBLEM) -
   1) I view the 1.53.x branch as "experimental" due to initial stages of migration towards Manifest V3 and dumbed-down "uBlock Origin Lite"
   2) yes, v1.52.2 is strictly Manifest V2 and I force my Chrome/forks to use MV2 (as does Supermium but I'm not 100% sure on this)
       a) uBO Lite (MV3) is INFERIOR and nobody should ever switch to it! (in my humble opinion)
           i) requires updating the entire extension instead of just updating lists - biggest B&llSh#t methodology EVER !!!
           ii) no longer allows "dynamic filtering"
           iii) no longer allows "custom filters"
       b) may require seeking alternative solutions once Chrome/forks eventually no longer allow MV2 to be "forced"
   3) v1.54.x deployed an update mechanism that auto-updates every 5 hours - another biggest B&llSh#t methodology !!!
   4) v1.54.x removed the "Purge All Caches" button and forces users to use only "differential updates"
   5) must modify to my liking as I disapprove HEAVILY with uBlock's DATA COLLECTION and STORAGE
       a) no, uBlock does not SEND that STORED DATA COLLECTION to "anybody" - DO NOT CARE
       b) the "collection" grows and grows and grows and grows and grows - biggest B&llSh#t methodology EVER, I have NO USE for this "collection"
           i) my "profile" size on disk is MONITORED
           ii) ANY extension that INCREASES this disk size due to DATA COLLECTION is modified heavily to prevent this B&llSh#t DATA COLLECTION
           iii) do not care if that DATA ever leaves my machine or not, the very act of COLLECTING IT is a violation of Privacy Rights, in my humble opinion
           iv) these types of LOCAL-ONLY DATA COLLECTIONS is the very start of how DATA BREACHES begin, "sorry, millions of users, that data was intended for local use"
   6) I'm very "opinionated", I could make this list extend into TRIPLE-DIGITS, but that probably is just some form of liking to hear myself talk