CDIMAGE.EXE 2.27 needed

[jaclaz]

Set the Date/Time to PST? Why?

Because it is needed to have "local reference time" correct in sector 16, absolute offset 0x833D.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~pje/iso9660.html

offset from Greenwich Mean Time, in 15-minute intervals,

as a twos complement signed number, positive for time

zones east of Greenwich, and negative for time zones

west of Greenwich

This forces all files/folders written -and- the Volume(?) Timestamp (look around the CD001 value for that).

No, this sets the files folders timestamp AND the Volume timestamp BUT NOT the timezone ("offset from Greenwich Mean Time" see above).

 

That -y6 Option is an oddball. Guess I'll have to do some testing as well.

You mean that you don't trust my word for it?

 

Be aware that the "Signature" stuff is -not- in the "commonly leaked" versions and I flat REFUSE to provide any info/links I gleaned on that

There is NO "signature stuff" in a 2K CD AFAIK, only in the NT 4.x ones. (the referenced post on BetaArchive is about NT 4.00 and CDIMAGE 2.28).

jaclaz

Edited May 17, 2014 by jaclaz

[bphlpt]

I still don't see what purpose or benefit can be had by recreating an "original" Win2K CD.  No matter what one does it still won't be an "original" since the original CD's are stamped and not burned.  Wouldn't it be better/easier to just purchase a Win2K CD on eBay or something?  And I'm also missing why this particular version of CDIMAGE is "required" anyway in this case.  Is it required to produce the Win2K CD or is it required to install Win2K from the CD?  And if you are trying to create a Win2K CD to install and run today, why make an "original" version rather than an updated one?  I know, recreate and not create, but I can't see why.  I'm just totally lost and don't see the point of this thread at all, and the fact that the OP hasn't offered any clarification or responded at all in several days hasn't helped.

 

Cheers and Regards

[dencorso]

but I can't see why. 

 

Well, that one is actually quite easy: it's because we're inside the Asylum. See:

 

 

[jaclaz]

@bphlpt

There are a number of people that - for whatever reason - think that it is "cool" to recreate an "original" .iso.

Example:

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/54441-Restored-each-Windows-ME-version-files-to-ISO-by-CDIMAGE-2-39

Since the MD5 and SHA1 hashes of a number of original CD's/iso's have been published, these people attempt to re-build these images in such a way that they verify these hashing methods, besides the CRC32 one (which in the case of a number of .iso's is "corrected" by the use of the -x option, i.e. AutoCRC).

 

This makes NO sense whatever under any practical point of view (as - as you correctly stated - a "collector" would want an original CD), i.e. the activity is totally futile, still it is well among what freedom allows , as no human being or living creature is actually hurt in the process of pursuing this (again, apparently senseless) goal.

 

A more sensible goal is obviously, as I initially stated, to create a .iso capable of installing the OS (which is - or should be - the ONLY actual goal of an install CD/.iso).

 

BUT, the sheer moment in which someone comes here, BTW slipping on a chocolate covered banana:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html

and states something like:

 

 

Are you sure you're not chasing a wild goose?

Win 95 SR2.5 CD was created with v. 2.38 (from 1997); Win 98SE and Win ME CDs, with v. 2.39 (from 1997) and Win XP SP3 CDs, with v. 2.52 (from 2004)... are you sure you need v. 2.27 ?

 

Because it is impossible to restore Windows 2000 (SP0 / SP1) without CDIMAGE 2.27.

 

something must be done:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031971/quotes?item=qt0178026

 

in order to find out if the statement is accurate and if the (futile) goal is actually impossible to reach using another method or - as normally happens - it is perfectly possible.

 

If you prefer, I am completely indifferent to the activity of recreating "original" CD's/.iso's, but sensible to the declared impossibility of the feat.

 

jaclaz

[submix8c]

Hmmm - in response to jaclaz (re: Time Zone) -

 

Maybe that's why a "hacked" versions of cdimage exists, utilizing "-gnn" and "-xx" as opposed to just "-x" (both being "new"/"production" parameters)? The -trick- is getting the right (original) Time Zone from that offset as I've seen that it -may- vary from Release-To-Release (per OS and Service Pack). For example, take a look at -original- XP CD's (per service pack).

 

Silly me - should have read the link... you are correct about the NT4 (signature) issue. I had found similar info "elsewhere". I -suppose- that the OP could "hack" a functioning version?

 

Oh, and another link (member name from the link you gave) -

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/archive/index.php/t-30481.html

re - NT4... Heeeere's Johnny!

 

"Seemingly" related?

www.msfn.org/board/topic/128122-crc-verifycation-utility-version-300/

 

IMHO

[jaclaz]

Sure, if the idea is to recreate something you need to have the "original", and see which dates/times AND timezones were used originally.

 

So, once you have the "original", it would be easier to make a copy of it than re-creatng it from scratch, hence the utter futility of the operation.

 

But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? ) lessen dramatically.

 

I mean, once you have a proper building method, even if you don' t know the actual timezone but you have (besides ALL the actual original files and the date attributed to them by the -t switch) the SHA1 or MD5 of the original, you only have to go through a finite number of iterations to get a valid SHA1/MD5 by changing the mentioned byte.

 

jaclaz

[dencorso]

But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? ) lessen dramatically.

Because, it seems, real life is way stranger than fiction, in that, in fiction, there's just one Pierre Menard, while in RL there are several of them.  

[bphlpt]

 

But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? ) lessen dramatically.

Because, it seems, real life is way stranger than fiction, in that, in fiction, there's just one Pierre Menard, while in RL there are several of them.  

 

 

For those, like me, who are/were unfamiliar with the reference:

 

"Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" is written in the form of a review or literary critical piece about Pierre Menard, a fictional 20th-century French writer. It begins with a brief introduction and a listing of Menard's work.

Borges' "review" describes Menard's efforts to go beyond a mere "translation" of Don Quixote by immersing himself so thoroughly in the work as to be able to actually "re-create" it, line for line, in the original 17th-century Spanish. Thus, Pierre Menard is often used to raise questions and discussion about the nature of authorship, appropriation and interpretation.

And like many threads, this one has taken on a life of its own, even though the OP has apparently never returned, or at least he has not commented on whether this has met his needs or not, and if so, or not, why, or why not.  Oh well.

 

Cheers and Regards

[WinDev]

I also need CDIMAGE 2.27, but I need also some old versions which I cannot find:

 

CDIMAGE 2.03 (03/28/95 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.05 (07/17/95 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.12 (01/24/96 TM)

[jaclaz]

Let's see if this is clear enough :

CDIMAGE 2.27, as well as 2.03, 2.05, 2.12 are NOT available.

The last character in the above sentence is a "full stop" or period.

If - on the other hand, the CDIMAGE 2.27 is *needed* to rebuild a Windows 2000 ISO, then it is NOT needed as it is possible to recreate that .iso using CDIMAGE 2.39 hexedited to change some data, used with the provided switches.

jaclaz

[johnyept]

Sorry for digging up the topic, I just found it after a google search. Let me try to explain why (in my case) I want to recreate original ISOs down to the SHA1 hash:

 

I decided to combine every 9x Windows on a single All-In-One ISO. To save space, to have it all in one place, just for fun? Take your pick. Since I want to install every Windows from the boot menu (including MS-DOS from the original floppy images, yes it's possible!), this means I can't have all Windows in ISO format as this would require some kind of emulation, plus it would simply not fit on a single DVD. Many files are common between ISOs, so space can be spared by saving common files only once. Just as an example, Windows 2000 SP0/SP4 Pro/server, XP SP0/SP3 Home/Pro, Server 2003 SP0/SP2 Standard/Enterprise plus R2 CDs and several OEM/Retail/Volume versions of them all tottaling around 30GB can all fit in 1 DVD and still be able to recreate all original untouched ISOs with a single batch and the correspondent cdimage versions.

 

When it comes to Windows 9x, any ISO created with cdimage 2.27 or below simply can't be recreated with currently available cdimage versions: you can hexedit the version number, but the header created with newer versions is bigger than the older versions, so even if you find all the right parameters, the ISO size will always be bigger than the original. It might have something to do with how the dates were handled up to v2.27, possibly because of post Y2K dates. It MIGHT be possible to hack a cdimage version, but it will require more knowlegde than simply hexediting a couple of numbers.

 

Solution? Don't have one right now, but one possibility might be to find a cdimage version that can create an ISO identical to the original ISO excluding the header, then use some kind of patch to apply the original header to the newly created ISO.

[jaclaz]

Well, maybe originally version 2.27 was not used (but rather some other "really internal" version).

 

At least for the single Windows 2000 .iso I tested, I was able to recreate it EXACTLY with a hexedited 2.39, as posted.

 

It is entirely possible that you need some more esoteric command switches in order to make use of the CDIMAGE v2.39 (hexedited) to recreate 9x iso's.

 

jaclaz