Re: [UPDATE] ImgBurn 2.5.5.0

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:33:14 +0100, s|b wrote:

> <http://www.imgburn.com/>
>
> ImgBurn is a free tool that enables you to burn CD/DVD images with ease.
> All the latest drives are supported (including booktype / bitsetting on
> many of the major ones). Advanced functionality can be found in the
> ImgBurn context menus.
>
>| Added:
>|
>| * Support for Plextor PX-870 / PX-880 / PX-L890 drives to be treated as LiteOn drives (rather than true Plextor drives) by the 'Book Type' / 'Advanced Settings' code. This negates the need to manually enter the Device IDs in the 'Configure Drive OEM' window.
>| * Support for /NOSAVELOG command line switch (see ReadMe.txt for usage).
>| * Support for /FILESYSTEMONLY command line switch (see ReadMe.txt for usage).
>| * Support for relative paths when reading the boot image file name from an IBB file.
>| * Proper support for CDI images (including multi-track/session ones) via Padus's PfcToc.dll file (must be present where ImgBurn.exe is).
>|
>| Changed:
>|
>| * Show a little more firmware version information for LG drives on the Device Capabilities window and when checking for firmware updates. This is useful for drives like the BH10LS30 that display 1.00 when the full version number might actually be 1.00-A9.
>| * Increased precision of timestamps when 'building' UDF file system.
>|
>| Changed/Fixed:
>|
>| * DLL loading method to avoid Microsoft Security Advisory (2269637).
>|
>| Fixed:
>|
>| * An internal table containing file system info during a Read/Verify operation was using an incorrect size value for files when UDF was being used and the files had multiple allocation descriptors spread over multiple sectors. (Only used when logging which file a certain bad sector belongs to)
>
> Download:
> <http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=download>

Not one mention as to the root cause for v2.5.5.0 but noooo problem,
ImgBurn has a solution.

"users are advised to avoid opening untrusted files"

Idiocy. What's a "trusted file"? What's "untrusted"? Determine? Most
of all data that comes over the internet is untrusted.

You don't know where it's coming from, who created it, who had access
to it and could have modified it, you don't know if it's being
tampered with while you are accessing it over the wire and so on.

Covering up design flaws with user control is the ultimate in
dishonest coding.
--
http://fffff.at/tag/****google/

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:53:32 -0500, Ari Silverstein wrote:

> Not one mention as to the root cause for v2.5.5.0 but noooo problem,
> ImgBurn has a solution.
>
> "users are advised to avoid opening untrusted files"
>
> Idiocy. What's a "trusted file"? What's "untrusted"?

Pretty easy, actually;

1. Trusted: known, software vendor's site. 2. Untrusted: unknown,
alternative site. I tend to go for the first option. Never failed me
once in many years of downloading and installing hundreds of files.
--
A Billion for a Billion

http://tinyurl.com/5qk8kl

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:54:46 -0500, casperian wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:53:32 -0500, Ari Silverstein wrote:
>
>> Not one mention as to the root cause for v2.5.5.0 but noooo problem,
>> ImgBurn has a solution.
>>
>> "users are advised to avoid opening untrusted files"
>>
>> Idiocy. What's a "trusted file"? What's "untrusted"?
>
> Pretty easy, actually;
>
> 1. Trusted: known, software vendor's site. 2. Untrusted: unknown,
> alternative site. I tend to go for the first option. Never failed me
> once in many years of downloading and installing hundreds of files.

Years ago, I'd agree with you straight away...

But, Tech has shown me white or black. Unfortunately, there's a grey
area...

Includes security vendors websites being compromised...

So, when I download something from these security vendors, can I be
100% sure they haven't been compromised once more, and that I'm not
downloading adulterated files...? Here is where I use TECH...

This, then makes wonder if something I'm downloading from a trusted
software vendor's site is to be 100% trusted....

We do need to make a compromise to what we deem to be trusted, though,
right...?

Maybe is just a like a web site; what is a trusted and an untrusted
one? Long gone are those days...

Tech solves all...

THANKS
--
Tech, computer repair specialist (on the side), part time Tech Pro
poster to Wilders Security...home base...On usenet to help noobs...
Not me...

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:33:37 -0500, DasFox wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:54:46 -0500, casperian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:53:32 -0500, Ari Silverstein wrote:
>>
>>> Not one mention as to the root cause for v2.5.5.0 but noooo problem,
>>> ImgBurn has a solution.
>>>
>>> "users are advised to avoid opening untrusted files"
>>>
>>> Idiocy. What's a "trusted file"? What's "untrusted"?
>>
>> Pretty easy, actually;
>>
>> 1. Trusted: known, software vendor's site. 2. Untrusted: unknown,
>> alternative site. I tend to go for the first option. Never failed me
>> once in many years of downloading and installing hundreds of files.
>
> Years ago, I'd agree with you straight away...

No one needs to agree. It's just the way I perceive it based on past
and recent experience Until I experience otherwise, I maintain my view
on this.
--
A Billion for a Billion

http://tinyurl.com/5qk8kl