Weird 12.89 downloads

[Serenity]

Sorry, I'm missed a few intermediate releases, so maybe I just missed something important.  When I try to do downloads, I get the x64 package with no problems, but when I attempt the same download for the 32-bit version, it ends up looking like what is shown in the attachment.  I'm just not sure what is going on with that.

Sorry to bug you. NOT urgent from my perspective, but I just need to figure out what I'm doing wrong.

THANKS for your time and help.

[Phil Harvey]

I don't know what could be causing this.  Perhaps the download was interrupted, and now the browser is using the truncated cache version?  Try clearing your browser history and re-downloading.  Or using a different browser.  I just downloaded it here and it came through and unzipped with no problems.

- Phil

[StarGeek]

The .part extension is what the browser (chrome and firefox I think) uses as a temporary file during download. It shouldn't stick around after the download is finished unless something went wrong. You can delete it.

[Serenity]

Yeah, it's weirder than the .part thing.

I thought it might be 7zip, as I upgraded it recently, but I completely uninstalled it, and that made no difference.  I have NO clue what it's doing, and/or if this is just some "fun and exciting thing" involving the latest Windows updates.

Sorry to repeat some of this, but I'll add some extra stuff too.
When clicking on the 32-bit download (from the Windows box on the home page), I get these two downloads:
exiftool-12.89_32.zip  (which is ZERO bytes in size)
exiftool-12.kDg9KCKY.89_32.zip  (which is 10,534 KB in size)

And when I drill into the second folder above, I see this folder "exiftool-12.89_32", and...
when I drill into that folder above, there IS an exiftool(-k).exe, BUT is 36KB in size.
And, if you do execute that minuscule file, a window flashes up and away in a fraction of a second, but it is NOT a command prompt, and it's really only the "borders" of the "quick flash" that appear.

So, again, neither of you seem to be seeing anything like that, but whereas I always used to just get a simple, zipped, -k version of the tool, I'm now getting a whole package of zipped folders and "stuff", which includes that extremely small -k file.

If nothing else, this is more of a heads-up than anything else.  OR, maybe I'm not supposed to be clicking on either of those Zip packages in the Windows box(?), but I'm not seeing anything else on the home page that seems to represent "singular, zipped" Windows versions.

Either Windows is doing something super-crazy, or I'm just downloading the wrong zip file.

As I said, I've still got 12.87, so it's not the end of the world.  And if I AM doing something REALLY STUPID, do not hesitate to hit me over the head with a brick, and tell me that I'm an idiot.

As always, THANKS for the great tool, and for your help.

 

[StarGeek]

What browser are you using?

I'm pretty sure this is a browser issue.  On Firefox, when I try to download "exiftool-12.89_32.zip", it creates a 0 size file with the right name and blocks the full download until I click the download button and confirm I want to download it.

Trying Chrome, I get a similar situation. It creates a file called "Unconfirmed 113268.crdownload", but this one is the full download. It isn't until I click the download button and confirm that I want to download it.

Both download the 64 bit without problem.

So I'm not getting the exact same results as you, but still having a problem.

[Serenity]

Sorry, I was asked about browsers earlier, and failed to talk about that.  My bad.
Firefox, Chrome, Edge.  None do the job right, but Edge does act much different.  With Edge, I do end up with zip files with the exact same names as shown on the download page, making it look like "things are going to be wonderful!".

But the problem is that once you click on either of them (32 or 64), you again end up at a file folder (e.g. exiftool-12.89.32, or 64), and clicking on that, you again are looking at (with the 32-bit file):
exiftool_files (a folder, with the dll package, perl, etc., and a lib directory); and
exiftool(-k).exe (which is another a 36KB file, so not the "real" executable); and
README.txt (which was never anything bundled into previous zip files).


Again, I used to just be downloading a zip'd exe, and that seemed to be all there was to nabbing the latest release.  If these ARE the real exe's, then I'm clueless as to how they are being magically deconstructed into what seems to be a wide variety of "piece parts".

NOT whining!!  Just massively confused, as I've just never seen anything quite like this before.

Thanks for the continued input and ideas.  Much appreciated.

[StarGeek]

The newest version isn't a single file anymore. See the Windows install instructions.

Basically, you need to also move the "exiftool_files" directory to the same places as the exiftool(-k).exe

Alternatively, you can use the exiftool installer that's available on Oliver Betz's site.

There are multiple "12.88" threads in the "The "exiftool" Application" forum section that go into details on the differences.

[Serenity]

Alright.  Thanks for giving me a good knock on the head.  I just jumped on the download, as I've previously done, and didn't really (mentally) sort out that it was a completely new construct.  When I'm not pressed for time (like I am now) I'll have to sort through the installation details so that I can properly invoke it from a command prompt.  Apologies for not having properly realized that it had been deconstructed intentionally, into this different format.

Thanks

[Serenity]

Regarding the downloading problems with the new larger (and more complex) 32 & 64 bit zip files...

As was mentioned previously by others, the problems with downloading the newer package variations is at least partially a problem with the browsers being utilized.  Oddly, it's unclear which software component is materially different between the two versions (i.e. 64, vs. 32 bit), but that is also part of the problem.  (Something in the 32-bit code is being "thought to be" malicious.  I DO NOT believe that to be the case at all, but it is the cause of these problems.  I believe it to simply be a "false positive")

Secondly, no matter what browser that I utilize to invoke a download, the 64-bit file always downloads successfully (i.e. as exiftool-12.89_64.zip).  And, as mentioned above, it is something in the 32-bit package that sets off an alarm, but not for every browser, as I discovered.

The most important finding is that the Microsoft Edge browser will successfully download either of the two packages successfully.  (I never really use it, but on a whim, I gave it a try, and made this discovery.)  So, just remember to crank up that browser when downloading any future updates, and that will hopefully continue to be a way to avoid mangled downloads.  (YET ANOTHER indicator that the problem component isn't anything that is actually malicious, as well as the fact that my A/V software didn't complain.)

Firefox (which is my primary browser) always disassembles the 32-bit zip package and appears to block part of that package, leaving it unusable.  I have not seen anything that will let me circumvent that.

Chrome reacts like Firefox (i.e. mangling the download, leaving a non-usable component), HOWEVER, if using Chrome, you can clip on the vertical, three-dot icon at the far right of the URL dialog, and in the resulting drop-down, click on Downloads.  That will open a new tab, showing your downloads (newest at the top), which should be the file name of the 32-bit image.  And to the far-right of that name will be yet another vertical, three-dot icon.  If you click on that icon, you can then click on the second line, which should say "Download suspicious file".  That selection should result in the "full" 32-bit zip package being downloaded successfully.

So, again, it's code within the browsers, seeing something that they don't like, but I believe that to be a totally bogus detection.  Again, the Microsoft Edge browser will circumvent all of this, so even if it is not your browser of choice, you should at least fire it up when you plan to download new versions.

SORRY for the long post, but I thought it important to properly sort out the situation.

[Phil Harvey]

Thanks for the analysis.  It is interesting that Firefox on the Mac has no problem with this.  Could you try downloading version exiftool-12.88_32.zip also has this problem?

- Phil

[obetz]

Firefox (which is my primary browser) always disassembles the 32-bit zip package and appears to block part of that package

it does not disassemble the ZIP file, it just blocks the download until you allow it.

Chrome reacts like Firefox (i.e. mangling the download, leaving a non-usable component), HOWEVER, if using Chrome, you can clip on the vertical, three-dot icon at the far right of the URL dialog, and in the resulting drop-down, click on Downloads.  That will open a new tab, showing your downloads (newest at the top), which should be the file name of the 32-bit image.  And to the far-right of that name will be yet another vertical, three-dot icon.  If you click on that icon, you can then click on the second line, which should say "Download suspicious file".  That selection should result in the "full" 32-bit zip package being downloaded successfully.

1. Firefox seemingly uses a Google service to decide whether to block a file.

2. Firefox has also the possibility to allow the download. Press Ctrl-J for the download list, click on the "i" icon. The text "This file is not commonly downloaded" resp. "Diese Datei wird selten heruntergeladen" etc.) will lead you to explanations, e.g.:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/where-find-and-manage-downloaded-files-firefox
https://support.mozilla.org/de/kb/suchen-und-verwalten-heruntergeladener-dateien

I didn't observe such behavior until now, that's quite unexpected to see with ExifTool.

[StarGeek]

it does not disassemble the ZIP file, it just blocks the download until you allow it.

Based upon this, I think @Serenity is mistaking the fact that Windows will by default treat zip files as directories and instead thinking this is behavior from the browser.

And when I drill into the second folder above, I see this folder "exiftool-12.89_32", and...
when I drill into that folder above, there IS an exiftool(-k).exe, BUT is 36KB in size.

[Phil Harvey]

I didn't observe such behavior until now, that's quite unexpected to see with ExifTool.

@Oliver: Does it happen for you too?

- Phil

[obetz]

@Oliver: Does it happen for you too?

Yes. I use also Firefox as main browser (a competitor to Chrome must remain!), and Firefox told me "This file is not commonly downloaded". I had to manually allow the download. I had not yet time to dig more into this. I'm not yet sure whether it's a good thing, but likely it is although false positives are possible.

[Phil Harvey]

Thanks.  "Not commonly downloaded" is sort of true.  Only 3400 downloads/week for the 32-bit version vs 21000 for the 64-bit version.

For what it's worth, I ran both versions through the virustotal.com online tester, and they both came up clean.

- Phil