Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ZackS · Oct 5, 2003, 01:10 PM

Panther 7B85 is fake.

Reason 1: All of its system files were created and last modified on September 28, the day 7B80 came out

Reason 2: It's not on the ADC.

Reason 3: It is, bit for bit with the exception of SystemVersions.plist, identical to 7B80

Spaztik · Oct 5, 2003, 01:16 PM

I agree. This 7B85 build is just 7B80 with a disguise.

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=56030

RevEvs · Oct 5, 2003, 01:23 PM

Now this wouldnt surprise me.

So many stupid bugs in it that shouldnt be there.

revs

dfiler · Oct 5, 2003, 01:26 PM

So they're working off the assumption that two builds in one day is impossible?

Peabo · Oct 5, 2003, 01:26 PM

I hope this doesn't dent Piracy's ego too much

Moose · Oct 5, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by ZackS:
Panther 7B85 is fake.

Reason 1: All of its system files were created and last modified on September 28, the day 7B80 came out

Define "came out."

Reason 2: It's not on the ADC.

Neither was 7B80. Is this a fake, too?

Reason 3: It is, bit for bit with the exception of SystemVersions.plist, identical to 7B80

A) md5sums, please.
B) While *you* may have obtained something that is bit-for-bit identical with 7B80 (SystemVersions.plist notwithstanding), that does not necessarily mean that 7B85 is, itself, fake, or that other people do not have a legitimate 7B85.

RevEvs · Oct 5, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by dfiler:
So they're working off the assumption that two builds in one day is impossible?

well that would be *5* builds in one day.

But the fact they are bit for bit identical seems like better proof.

We need confirmation from some other sources...!

revs

Spaztik · Oct 5, 2003, 01:30 PM

The copy I have is fake.

ZackS · Oct 5, 2003, 01:31 PM

Oh, of course there may be people with a real build titled 7B85, but they're likely to be either in Apple or a major software maker such as Adobe, where violating the NDA could cost them their jobs. All I know is that the build from the source most people here use is fake.

Patcarla · Oct 5, 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by ZackS:
Oh, of course there may be people with a real build titled 7B85, but they're likely to be either in Apple or a major software maker such as Adobe, where violating the NDA could cost them their jobs. All I know is that the build from the source most people here use is fake.

How do you know?

Zimphire · Oct 5, 2003, 01:46 PM

You guys crack me up.

RevEvs · Oct 5, 2003, 01:47 PM

yeah i think we need checksums of b80 and b85 and some more proof

revs

Peabo · Oct 5, 2003, 01:51 PM

Something that would crack me up would be if we are still months from GM status

RevEvs · Oct 5, 2003, 01:54 PM

Lets not turn this into another "is 7B85 the GM" thread! Lets keep it as a "is the 7B85 people have aquired actually 7B85"

revs

ZackS · Oct 5, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Patcarla:
How do you know?

Because every single build number exists, just some of them are not released, even internally. I'm sure there's a build number 7B73 somewhere and a 7B75, 6 etc... The build numbers are not random. I'm sure there is someone with a real copy of 7B85, it's just not any of the people who acquired illegally off a major source.

bleuvixen · Oct 5, 2003, 02:00 PM

so they hacked the installer, edited the plist and took time to distributed it? hahaha

This build fixed bugs I had in B80, so I know its not the same, could just be a new install fixed it but I doubt it.

Moose · Oct 5, 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by ZackS:
I'm sure there is someone with a real copy of 7B85, it's just not any of the people who acquired illegally off a major source.

I'll reiterate the question you're ignoring:

How do you know?

What is your proof of this?

ZackS · Oct 5, 2003, 02:08 PM

Well, there would be the fact that I "know someone who has" acquired it illegally off of a major source and found it to be identical to the version of 7B80 from the same source. The hacked DMG was even created in such a way that it could not be burned in Toast and then booted, unlike any other build of Panther.

I don't know 100% that 85 exists at all, but if it does, the version on the source "my friend" used was not the real deal.

PS: Hacking the version number is not complicated at all. It would take 5 minutes to do.

Hash · Oct 5, 2003, 02:08 PM

Echoing Moose, and indeed, i can imagine some people profiteering from hacking the version number and presenting it as a latest build, perhaps even as a GM. There are certain commercial and other interests there at stake. I dont say its fake one, but i can see why it can be a fake and how some could gain from distributing it.

Hash · Oct 5, 2003, 02:12 PM

And those who hacked it, perhaps, were those who declared it to be GM; as i recall, the origin of news that 7B85 is a GM is very unclear one, comes from a certain place with not very clear reputation. I cant say its fake, i repeat, but such possibility is real.

daydreamer · Oct 5, 2003, 02:16 PM

haha, it was the same **** with 6C115 , noone believed that was gonna be in the boxes 3 weeks later, and it was.. I'm pretty sure this is NOT fake...

Hash · Oct 5, 2003, 02:19 PM

I would love to hear why you are so sure..being so close to the origin of GM news..bother to share?

Patcarla · Oct 5, 2003, 02:21 PM

OK then..So simple question: is there any way to check that the 7B85 build that everybody has dld is fake or not?

nibs · Oct 5, 2003, 02:21 PM

ZackS:
Reason 1: All of its system files were created and last modified on September 28, the day 7B80 came out

a) full disclosure:
i'm not running 7b85.

b) that could be a coincidence. it could be that 7b85 was built the day 7b80 was released. meaning it takes a couple days for apple to release a build after it's built. meaning apple might actually test a build before they release it for seeding. what you are suggesting almost implies that apple seeds builds as soon as they are built without any testing at all. if we assume a build a day, my suggestion implies 5 days of testing for 7b80 before that was released for seeding. coincidentally on that day, the next build that was to be eventually released was built.

now, i don't know if 7b85 is real or fake, but your logic seems a little flawed there.

Reason 2: It's not on the ADC.

that would mean something if 7b84 or 7b86 were on adc. if adc had a different "new" build. from what you are saying is available on adc, there is no conflict there.

Reason 3: It is, bit for bit with the exception of SystemVersions.plist, identical to 7B80

how was this tested? and imagine apple had a target release date, and 7b81-4 actually introduced undesirable bugs. is it possible that apple could revert to the 7b80 code and simply update the build number? i don't know if apple actually does stuff like that, in practice it simply may not work like that. but it is a possible explanation.

i'm not running 7b85, but i hope it isn't faked; because if it's faked it might be trojaned...and to this point i think that's unprecedented.

JonoG4 · Oct 5, 2003, 02:26 PM

uname -a in the 7B85 from BT yeilds:

Code:
7.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0: Wed Sep 24 15:48:39 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-517.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC  
Power Macintosh powerpc

Anyone with 7B80 want to compare?

Grrr · 05:28 PM

For those of you that grabbed it from the ******** site.. Did no one else notice it was spelt "Panter"?
Set a few alarm bells ringing over here anyway.

Pheed · Oct 5, 2003, 02:30 PM

Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0: Mon Sep 22 22:37:38 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-515.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

Originally posted by JonoG4:
uname -a in the 7B85 from BT yeilds:

Code:
7.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0: Wed Sep 24 15:48:39 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-517.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

Anyone with 7B80 want to compare?

Patcarla · Oct 5, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Grrr:
For those of you that grabbed it from the 'Mac Torrents Kicks ass', Bit Torrent site.. Did no one else notice it was spelt "Panter"?
Set a few alarm bells ringing over here anyway.

where was it spell "panter"?

nibs · Oct 5, 2003, 02:33 PM

Pheed:
Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0: Mon Sep 22 22:37:38 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-515.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

so they compared all the system files but not the kernel? :o pretty thorough...

SafariX · Oct 5, 2003, 02:34 PM

7.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0: Mon Sep 22 22:37:38 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-515.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

Zack, please take time to learn about *how* to compare various builds to see if one is fake or not. Saying they are or aren't just isn't accurate or useful.

(forgot to say this is B80)

Hash · Oct 5, 2003, 02:35 PM

I dont remember exactly, but were not those with these builds installed affected most by ethernet bugs in 10.2.8 v1? Coincidence? Virus writers would love to have IPs of DSL/cable machines to hijack, which probably will be machines with pirated versions installed, since it requires broadband speeds.. perhaps, for later use, and with ips known, trojans could be installed, indeed, technically speaking, later or even using hacked versions.. and triggered at a later date?

SafariX · Oct 5, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Hash:
I dont remember exactly, but were not those with these builds installed affected most by ethernet bugs in 10.2.8 v1? Coincidence? Virus writers would love to have IPs of DSL/cable machines to hijack, which probably will be machines with pirated versions installed, since it requires broadband speeds.. perhaps, for later use, and with ips known, trojans could be installed, indeed, technically speaking, later or even using hacked versions.. and triggered at a later date?

Hash, how does running a build of 10.3 have anything to do with running 10.2.8? Even if a user ran 10.3, went back to 10.2.8 and had these ethernet problems you say, hackers would have to know their IP, and know they went back to 10.2.8, and hope their IP hadnt changed, their machine was on, and had broadband. mmmk

Hash · 02:51 PM

Originally posted by SafariX:
Hash, how does running a build of 10.3 have anything to do with running 10.2.8? Even if a user ran 10.3, went back to 10.2.8 and had these ethernet problems you say, hackers would have to know their IP, and know they went back to 10.2.8, and hope their IP hadnt changed, their machine was on, and had broadband. mmmk

Well, i was thinking about possible relation and those running pirated 10.3 builds most likely would install it on an additional partition, along with working normal 10.2.6, which later would be upgraded with 10.2.8 v1. When a normal 10.2.6 is operating, nothing precludes some little piece of code to work from 10.3 partition and mess with internet, which could cause problems with ethernet and the update in general..with this little trojan horse maybe sending your data somewhere, recording your keystrokes, gathering mail addresses, collecting autofill info, either from normal 10.2.6 or pirated 10.3 browser data..or

i am just assuming. Maybe its not fake, after all, maybe it is.

addiecool · Oct 5, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Grrr:
For those of you that grabbed it from the 'Mac Torrents Kicks ass', Bit Torrent site.. Did no one else notice it was spelt "Panter"?
Set a few alarm bells ringing over here anyway.

7b74 was spelled as "Un-Pant-her", but I did not have a girl to do that

Why are we posting so childish comments. Really this thread is disgusting. if 7b85 is GM I am happy, if not then we will have a GM build soon and make us all happy. So forget about it

eklipse · Oct 5, 2003, 02:48 PM

'7B80'

Disc 1 Checksum: CRC32 $178453FA
Disc 2 Checksum: CRC32 $6B693CF7
Disc 3 Checksum: CRC32 $30FBA95C

'7B85'

Disc 1 Checksum: CRC32 $1CAE6192
Disc 2 Checksum: CRC32 $11224E07
Disc 3 Checksum: CRC32 $5E4FDC25

THE GM IS OUT THERE

Pheed · Oct 5, 2003, 02:50 PM

The disc images of 7B80 and 7B85 aren't even anywhere close to the same size, so they can't possibly be "bit by bit identical" as was claimed...

Originally posted by eklipse:
'7B80'

Disc 1 Checksum: CRC32 $178453FA
Disc 2 Checksum: CRC32 $6B693CF7
Disc 3 Checksum: CRC32 $30FBA95C

'7B85'

Disc 1 Checksum: CRC32 $1CAE6192
Disc 2 Checksum: CRC32 $11224E07
Disc 3 Checksum: CRC32 $5E4FDC25

THE GM IS OUT THERE

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Oct 5, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
'7B80'

Disc 1 Checksum: CRC32 $178453FA
Disc 2 Checksum: CRC32 $6B693CF7
Disc 3 Checksum: CRC32 $30FBA95C

'7B85'

Disc 1 Checksum: CRC32 $1CAE6192
Disc 2 Checksum: CRC32 $11224E07
Disc 3 Checksum: CRC32 $5E4FDC25

THE GM IS OUT THERE

Uh...isnt a checksum meaningless if it was tampered with and re-imaged?

eklipse · Oct 5, 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
Uh...isnt a checksum meaningless if it was tampered with and re-imaged?

Don't ask me, I'm just throwin' more fuel on the fire.........

piracy · Oct 5, 2003, 02:57 PM

Oh man, this is great. I'm speechless.

7B85 is not at all identical to 7B80, much less "bit for bit".

Secondly, 7B85 is GM.

Third, not ANYWHERE near all the builds are seeded via ADC...just a mere fraction.

7B85 has not been seeded via ADC, but it is GM.

Mac OS X 10.3 is done, and 7B85 is the GM. Face it. Or at least prepare yourself for the fact that it will be 7B85 in the box when it ships.

Pheed · Oct 5, 2003, 02:59 PM

Regardless, these are far from "bit by bit identical."

7B85 CD1 632.93 MB
7B85 CD2 633.17 MB
7B85 CD3 212.21 MB

7B80 CD1 505.58 MB
7B80 CD2 597.71 MB
7B80 CD3 194.71 MB

These are far from "bit by bit identical."

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
Uh...isnt a checksum meaningless if it was tampered with and re-imaged?

Hash · Oct 5, 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
Oh man, this is great. I'm speechless.

7B85 is not at all identical to 7B80, much less "bit for bit".

Secondly, 7B85 is GM.

Third, not ANYWHERE near all the builds are seeded via ADC...just a mere fraction.

7B85 has not been seeded via ADC, but it is GM.

Mac OS X 10.3 is done, and 7B85 is the GM. Face it. Or at least prepare yourself for the fact that it will be 7B85 in the box when it ships.

are you talking about real 7B85 or tampered 7B85(80+something)?

daydreamer · Oct 5, 2003, 03:03 PM

OMG, they seeded B95 !!!

Patcarla · Oct 5, 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by daydreamer:
OMG, they seeded B95 !!!

wher did you see that??

nobitacu · Oct 5, 2003, 03:11 PM

Who cares if the 85 is fake or not... the bottom line is... if you have it, and it's fake? than you deserve it. You're not even suppose to have it the first place you pirates. Also, as long as the final version rolls out soon with most of the major bugs fixed, than I'm happy.

Ming

pooka · Oct 5, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Patcarla:
wher did you see that??

Patcarla · Oct 5, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by pooka:
<falls over dead>

??

Ganesha · Oct 5, 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Pheed:
Regardless, these are far from "bit by bit identical."

7B85 CD1 632.93 MB
7B85 CD2 633.17 MB
7B85 CD3 212.21 MB

7B80 CD1 505.58 MB
7B80 CD2 597.71 MB
7B80 CD3 194.71 MB

These are far from "bit by bit identical."

OMG!! They put the debug code back in!

ambush · Oct 5, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Patcarla:
??

b95 does not exist. he was joking.

eklipse · Oct 5, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Ganesha:
OMG!! They put the debug code back in!

Xeo · Oct 5, 2003, 03:24 PM

THE SIZE DIFFERENCE IS FROM EXTRA FILES PLACED ON EACH DISK TO MAKE IT LOOK DIFFERENT. THE 1337 H4X0R THAT MADE THIS BUILD KNEW IT WOULD THROW US OFF! THROW IT AWAY IT IS USING YOUR COMPUTER FOR SPAM PURPOSES!

yeah...