Download sysinternals sigcheck.exe version 1.54 or older???

On "Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:48:58 +0000 (UTC)", "thanatoid" said:
Wes wrote in
:


monitor your Windows (and others if
you so specify) directories for ANY changes, modification,
deletions, and additions. Most of the ones I recall were free.

For these tasks I use sfc.exe and InstallWatch.
As far as I understand is sigcheck.exe used mainly to find files with
a digital certificate and to preview the properties of such a
certificate. Is it similar to the W98SE program sigverif.exe?
Thanks for your comment.
Regards WES.

On "Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:52:16 -0400", "98 Guy" said:
Wes wrote:

I just downloaded sigcheck 1.6.
I issued the command "sigcheck c:\win98". c:\win98 is my win-98
directory.
Sigcheck came back with this message:
"This version of windows doesn't support image signing or checking".

I did exactly the same on my W98SE OS and sigcheck 1.60 came back:
"File C:\.....\sigcheck.exe expects a newer Windows version. Please do
renew your Windows version".

Is sigcheck 1.3 supposed to do operate differently on win-98?

sigcheck version 1.60 runs on XP and higher. (technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/sysinternals/bb897441.aspx)

sigcheck version 1.54 runs on W98SE and more. (download.cnet.com/Sigcheck/3000-
2248_4-91756.html)

Extrapolating to downward versions I hope I can say: version 1.3 runs on W98SE.

Regards WES.

On "Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:52:16 -0400", "98 Guy" said:
Wes wrote:

I just downloaded sigcheck 1.6.
I issued the command "sigcheck c:\win98". c:\win98 is my win-98
directory.
Sigcheck came back with this message:
"This version of windows doesn't support image signing or checking".

I did exactly the same on my W98SE OS and sigcheck 1.60 came back:
"File C:\.....\sigcheck.exe expects a newer Windows version. Please do
renew your Windows version".

Is sigcheck 1.3 supposed to do operate differently on win-98?

sigcheck version 1.60 runs on XP and higher. (technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/sysinternals/bb897441.aspx)

sigcheck version 1.54 runs on W98SE and more. (download.cnet.com/Sigcheck/3000-
2248_4-91756.html)

Extrapolating to downward versions I hope I can say: version 1.3 runs on W98SE.

Regards WES.

As far as I understand is sigcheck.exe used mainly to find files with
a digital certificate and to preview the properties of such a

I don't think the checking of these signing and certificates
are much help against virus and other malware, there are allways
your own files it can infect and obviously the registry itself.
It just adds another party, the certificate agency, to the mix.
I don't trust closed source, regardless if it comes from
sony or microsoft... we can only hope it doesn't do bad things
this time.

I hope there is nothing in windows that decrypts these checksums
each time the files is used, that would be a waste of cpu.
A windows that can work with a write protected registry would be
nice though...

As far as I understand is sigcheck.exe used mainly to find files with
a digital certificate and to preview the properties of such a

I don't think the checking of these signing and certificates
are much help against virus and other malware, there are allways
your own files it can infect and obviously the registry itself.
It just adds another party, the certificate agency, to the mix.
I don't trust closed source, regardless if it comes from
sony or microsoft... we can only hope it doesn't do bad things
this time.

I hope there is nothing in windows that decrypts these checksums
each time the files is used, that would be a waste of cpu.
A windows that can work with a write protected registry would be
nice though...

Wes wrote in
:

On "Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:48:58 +0000 (UTC)", "thanatoid"
said:
Wes wrote in
:

monitor your Windows (and others if
you so specify) directories for ANY changes, modification,
deletions, and additions. Most of the ones I recall were
free.

For these tasks I use sfc.exe and InstallWatch.
As far as I understand is sigcheck.exe used mainly to find
files with a digital certificate and to preview the
properties of such a certificate. Is it similar to the
W98SE program sigverif.exe? Thanks for your comment.
Regards WES.

I don't have sigverif on my 98SE machine (I run Lite, maybe
that's why). The name seems to imply it does just what you said.

(I just checked all the 98 CABs - a plug for Total Commander, it
took about 2 seconds to do - and it IS in one of them, but
perhaps it is a part of a group of system tools or something
which I chose not to install.)

AFA certificates and signatures, I don't pay much attention to
them - many reputable major sites I visit have invalid or
outdated certificates, and while I have never researched the
subject I believe the certificates can be very easily faked. I
know I am talking about a slightly different thing, maybe very
different, and if it does not apply at all, excuse my ignorance.

In any case, I run a NOD32 virus check on the entire C partition
every once in a while and I restore a perfect image of C fairly
often since I tend to fiddle with the system and install useless
programs. (Very bad habits.)

Speaking of Total Commander, it would be a matter of a minute or
two to compare ALL the files from the original Win98SE disc with
what you have on your HD. Of course, many programs change those
files, sometimes to older, sometimes to newer versions, and it's
a total nightmare. Look up MS's solution to the "RPC stub error"
for a perfect example of this insanity. You do what they tell
you, and then programs previously installed won't run so you
have to change it back. What a nightmare.

What I don't understand is why Windows does not just mark any
file that /CAN/ be ReadOnly as such. Some files change every
time you run Windows, so of course those would have to be
excluded, still I believe it might solve quite a few problems,
like file corruption, virus file substitution, etc.

Using InstallWatch is a good idea, since you can do a search to
quickly find which crucial sys files were changed - also, using
some analytical skills you can often catch call-homes, Trojans
or viruses before they kick in, and delete them - it's happened
to me.

FWIW, I use InCtrl4 from PC mag - a 600KB exe, while
InstallWatch is a 3.7MB *DL*. Yikes. It does seem to have a few
"making life simpler" features, but surely they do not need to
be 3MB's in size? (Just a fan of tiny apps speaking. Death to
bloat and eye-candy!)

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

Wes wrote in
:

On "Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:48:58 +0000 (UTC)", "thanatoid"
said:
Wes wrote in
:

monitor your Windows (and others if
you so specify) directories for ANY changes, modification,
deletions, and additions. Most of the ones I recall were
free.

For these tasks I use sfc.exe and InstallWatch.
As far as I understand is sigcheck.exe used mainly to find
files with a digital certificate and to preview the
properties of such a certificate. Is it similar to the
W98SE program sigverif.exe? Thanks for your comment.
Regards WES.

I don't have sigverif on my 98SE machine (I run Lite, maybe
that's why). The name seems to imply it does just what you said.

(I just checked all the 98 CABs - a plug for Total Commander, it
took about 2 seconds to do - and it IS in one of them, but
perhaps it is a part of a group of system tools or something
which I chose not to install.)

AFA certificates and signatures, I don't pay much attention to
them - many reputable major sites I visit have invalid or
outdated certificates, and while I have never researched the
subject I believe the certificates can be very easily faked. I
know I am talking about a slightly different thing, maybe very
different, and if it does not apply at all, excuse my ignorance.

In any case, I run a NOD32 virus check on the entire C partition
every once in a while and I restore a perfect image of C fairly
often since I tend to fiddle with the system and install useless
programs. (Very bad habits.)

Speaking of Total Commander, it would be a matter of a minute or
two to compare ALL the files from the original Win98SE disc with
what you have on your HD. Of course, many programs change those
files, sometimes to older, sometimes to newer versions, and it's
a total nightmare. Look up MS's solution to the "RPC stub error"
for a perfect example of this insanity. You do what they tell
you, and then programs previously installed won't run so you
have to change it back. What a nightmare.

What I don't understand is why Windows does not just mark any
file that /CAN/ be ReadOnly as such. Some files change every
time you run Windows, so of course those would have to be
excluded, still I believe it might solve quite a few problems,
like file corruption, virus file substitution, etc.

Using InstallWatch is a good idea, since you can do a search to
quickly find which crucial sys files were changed - also, using
some analytical skills you can often catch call-homes, Trojans
or viruses before they kick in, and delete them - it's happened
to me.

FWIW, I use InCtrl4 from PC mag - a 600KB exe, while
InstallWatch is a 3.7MB *DL*. Yikes. It does seem to have a few
"making life simpler" features, but surely they do not need to
be 3MB's in size? (Just a fan of tiny apps speaking. Death to
bloat and eye-candy!)

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

Wes wrote:

I just downloaded sigcheck 1.6.
I issued the command "sigcheck c:\win98". c:\win98 is my win-98
directory.
Sigcheck came back with this message:
"This version of windows doesn't support image signing or
checking".

I did exactly the same on my W98SE OS and sigcheck 1.60 came
back: "File C:\.....\sigcheck.exe expects a newer Windows
version. Please do renew your Windows version".

I may have installed KernelX on this system, which might be why sigcheck
1.6 didn't give me the message pertaining to win98.

What exactly is "image signing or checking", and do we know that win-98
support that function?

Wes wrote:

I just downloaded sigcheck 1.6.
I issued the command "sigcheck c:\win98". c:\win98 is my win-98
directory.
Sigcheck came back with this message:
"This version of windows doesn't support image signing or
checking".

I did exactly the same on my W98SE OS and sigcheck 1.60 came
back: "File C:\.....\sigcheck.exe expects a newer Windows
version. Please do renew your Windows version".

I may have installed KernelX on this system, which might be why sigcheck
1.6 didn't give me the message pertaining to win98.

What exactly is "image signing or checking", and do we know that win-98
support that function?

thanatoid wrote:

What I don't understand is why Windows does not just mark any
file that /CAN/ be ReadOnly as such. Some files change every
time you run Windows, so of course those would have to be
excluded, still I believe it might solve quite a few problems,
like file corruption, virus file substitution, etc.

Write protection is an OS function. It means nothing to anyone bypassing
the OS when writing.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico