Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: 7zip >> Sfx optimized - 23,7 kb

  1. #1
    Member Yuri Grille.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ****
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Post 7zip >> Sfx optimized - 23,7 kb

    Sorry if I have grammatical errors I speak Spanish. :=)

    Sfx optimized is a optimization of 7zip 4.64 self Extractor.

    Download
    http://lix.in/-424778

    Principal modifications:

    No icons and packed whith Upx (3.03W) or Upack (0.39 Final) you can choose.
    "I don?t know if ?Upacked? files can be detected as virus in some antivirus"


    Differences from original 7z SFX

    Original 78,0 KB (79.872 bytes)
    Modifiqued 54,3 KB (55.680 bytes) With Upack >> - 23,7 kb
    Modifiqued 58,5 KB (59.904 bytes) With UPX --brute >> - 19,5 kb

    How to Use:
    Copy the files

    sfx optimized (Upack)\7z.sfx and
    \7zCon.sfx

    Or
    sfx optimized (Upx) )\7z.sfx and
    \7zCon.sfx

    And paste in the 7zip folder :
    Programs Files\7zip\
    \PeaZip\res\7z << If you use PEAZIP >> http://peazip.sourceforge.net/


    And overwrite.

    For example now Precomp and Precomp confort in 291 >> -100 kb
    Download
    http://lix.in/-40c0eb


    Enjoy.
    ----------------------
    Yuri Grille


    thanks to
    Encode.Ru and Igor Pavlov
    Last edited by Yuri Grille.; 15th July 2009 at 22:06. Reason: Download link

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Antwerp , country:Belgium , W.Europe
    Posts
    487
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Thanks for the optimized 7z sfx's
    For example now Precomp and Precomp confort in 291 >> -100 kb
    Download
    http://lix.in/-40c0eb
    Mine is still better :
    precomp in 238 kb !!

    http://rapidshare.com/files/218563060/Precomp_237kb_.7z

  3. #3
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pat357 View Post
    Thanks for the optimized 7z sfx's

    Mine is still better :
    precomp in 238 kb !!

    http://rapidshare.com/files/218563060/Precomp_237kb_.7z
    Just wow...loose 1 minute on extraction to save 0.01 sec. on download.

    197,1
    Attached Files Attached Files

  4. #4
    Programmer schnaader's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hessen, Germany
    Posts
    539
    Thanks
    192
    Thanked 174 Times in 81 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by m^2 View Post
    Just wow...loose 1 minute on extraction to save 0.01 sec. on download.

    197,1
    Sorry, this is wrong - Precomp Comfort doesn't just show a different message and supports drag&drop, it also creates and parses an INI file which you can't do in a small batch file.

    Also, still no readme.txt in all your SFXs.
    http://schnaader.info
    Damn kids. They're all alike.

  5. #5
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by schnaader View Post
    Sorry, this is wrong - Precomp Comfort doesn't just show a different message and supports drag&drop, it also creates and parses an INI file which you can't do in a small batch file.

    Also, still no readme.txt in all your SFXs.
    I don't see how editing .ini is better than editing a batch.
    And readme...who reads them?

    But more seriously I totally agree that omitting readme was wrong.
    And replacing precomf with a batch wasn't fair, but really I don't see any advantage of your precomf over mine.

  6. #6
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuri Grille. View Post
    Sfx optimized is a optimization of 7zip 4.64 self Extractor.
    Yuri, please don't mislead people. The SFX stubs you've presented are not from v4.64. These are SFX stubs from v4.47 Beta. Although its not a problem from technical point of view - its absolutely not good from morality one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yuri Grille. View Post
    Modifiqued 54,3 KB (55.680 bytes) With Upack >> - 23,7 kb
    Modifiqued 58,5 KB (59.904 bytes) With UPX --brute >> - 19,5 kb
    Just for competition
    54 496 bytes with UPack v0.399
    58 302 bytes with UPX --brute + post-processing
    47 104 bytes with one nasty PE packer

    I can upload my variants if somebody interested or you have reasons not to believe me.

  7. #7
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pat357 View Post
    Mine is still better :
    precomp in 238 kb !!
    http://rapidshare.com/files/218563060/Precomp_237kb_.7z
    Nope ! Here is mine. 234 KB (240 376 bytes)
    It contains all files from Precomp v0.4 including Readme.txt. Furthermore it have modified GUI and new installator-like icon. Enjoy !
    Last edited by webmaster; 26th May 2016 at 13:06. Reason: attach removed. see http://encode.ru/threads/2509-What-s-wrong-with-forum-or-Yandex-browser?p=48183&viewfull=1#post48183

  8. #8
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Where did you get this UDA stub? Is it your work? Made from .exe or from the sources?
    Looks very different from the original.
    Anyway, another 0.1 KB down.
    There's some to be saved by using 16x16 icon.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by m^2; 8th April 2009 at 10:29.

  9. #9
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,134
    Thanks
    179
    Thanked 921 Times in 469 Posts
    It looks like its allowed to modify the precomp binaries here...
    Then you could at least strip the relocations from the dll...
    Also, I have a "mapper" script which patches a chunk in file,
    then runs the test, and undoes the change if exception occurs
    or test fails - it might allow to remove a lot of unused code from
    precomp, especially if its only intended for decoding something.
    But its a perl script

    Also, something like this might be useful too:
    http://shelwien.googlepages.com/precompU.rar
    (its a precomp.exe merged with packjpg_dll.dll)

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Saint Petersburg, Russia
    Posts
    215
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien View Post
    Also, something like this might be useful too:
    http://shelwien.googlepages.com/precompU.rar
    (its a precomp.exe merged with packjpg_dll.dll)
    Oh, this is useful even regardless this somewhat strange competition

  11. #11
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    231.5
    Attached Files Attached Files
    • File Type: exe 1.exe (231.6 KB, 468 views)

  12. #12
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by m^2 View Post
    Where did you get this UDA stub? Is it your work? Made from .exe or from the sources?
    Looks very different from the original.
    Yes, its my work. Made from exe-file, not from the sources. AFAIK there are no sources for WinUDA.
    By the way, making modified WinUDA is a little bit complicated process. Dwing used a nice and simple trick. Actualy WinUDA SFX is WinUDA itself prepended to .uda archive. At runtime WinUDA code checks the file size it have been executed from and if its 18 146 bytes or smaller it shows up the main window, if bigger - then it shows 'Extract to' dialog which you see when you start the SFX. Further. WinUDA packed with UPack (by Dwing too). It can be unpacked in different ways but the most "clean" unpack (at least for WinUDA) is done with PE Explorer. Now you can use some resource editor. I'm personally prefer old good Resource hacker. But your torment doesn't ends up here
    You need to shape your resulting file to 18 146 bytes or smaller. I advise you to use Upack v0.399 combined with UPack Optimizer to achieve the minimally smaller result. In my case it was lc=4 fb=13 and 18 144 bytes of resulting file. Then I just appended 2 zero bytes to exe-file to have the same 18 146 byte modified WinUDA.
    Yes, you can make it smaller. I was managed to pack it into ~15KB but unfortunately WinUDA code makes its judgements in very narrow range. It gives me the error with smaller image, although I believe some small changes in size are acceptable. Well, now you have your own WinUDA

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien View Post
    Then you could at least strip the relocations from the dll...
    Strange. I'm always thought that stripping the relocs from DLL will make it dead or its true only when you gonna pack DLL with some PE packer ? For example UPX docs say that UPX never strips relocs from DLL even when you use --strip-relocs=1. Thanks for tip.

    Quote Originally Posted by m^2 View Post
    231.5
    Ohh, I think its time to put the cards on the table. Here's my strike
    It's slow as hell and requires SSE2 from your CPU but its supplied with simple but natural installator, i.e. information screen and predefined path - C:\Program Files\Precomp, not the folder you're starting it from.
    By the way, nice 0D 0A -> 0A trick.

    227 KB (232 480 bytes)
    Attached Files Attached Files

  13. #13
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Skymmer View Post
    Yes, its my work. Made from exe-file, not from the sources. AFAIK there are no sources for WinUDA.
    By the way, making modified WinUDA is a little bit complicated process. Dwing used a nice and simple trick. Actualy WinUDA SFX is WinUDA itself prepended to .uda archive. At runtime WinUDA code checks the file size it have been executed from and if its 18 146 bytes or smaller it shows up the main window, if bigger - then it shows 'Extract to' dialog which you see when you start the SFX. Further. WinUDA packed with UPack (by Dwing too). It can be unpacked in different ways but the most "clean" unpack (at least for WinUDA) is done with PE Explorer. Now you can use some resource editor. I'm personally prefer old good Resource hacker. But your torment doesn't ends up here
    You need to shape your resulting file to 18 146 bytes or smaller. I advise you to use Upack v0.399 combined with UPack Optimizer to achieve the minimally smaller result. In my case it was lc=4 fb=13 and 18 144 bytes of resulting file. Then I just appended 2 zero bytes to exe-file to have the same 18 146 byte modified WinUDA.
    Yes, you can make it smaller. I was managed to pack it into ~15KB but unfortunately WinUDA code makes its judgements in very narrow range. It gives me the error with smaller image, although I believe some small changes in size are acceptable. Well, now you have your own WinUDA



    Strange. I'm always thought that stripping the relocs from DLL will make it dead or its true only when you gonna pack DLL with some PE packer ? For example UPX docs say that UPX never strips relocs from DLL even when you use --strip-relocs=1. Thanks for tip.



    Ohh, I think its time to put the cards on the table. Here's my strike
    It's slow as hell and requires SSE2 from your CPU but its supplied with simple but natural installator, i.e. information screen and predefined path - C:\Program Files\Precomp, not the folder you're starting it from.
    By the way, nice 0D 0A -> 0A trick.

    227 KB (232 480 bytes)
    RAR sfx treated with .kkrunchy and starting PAQ8p? Cool.
    There's still a lot to gain, but I'm too lazy. At least today.
    TODO:
    -I don't think that PAQ8p is the best choice, it has too many contexts that are unused.
    -I guess that it was compiled with speed, not size optimizations.
    -You didn't use the strongest mode.
    -Why RAR sfx? Because it was the first that could autostart the given program that came to your mind? A custom one would give 12 KB gain easily. Or even better: make a .bat dropper. ~15 KB.

    What did you use to compress PAQ? My PEID definitions fail here.

  14. #14
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by m^2 View Post
    RAR sfx treated with .kkrunchy and starting PAQ8p? Cool.
    Thanks

    Why RAR sfx? Because it was the first that could autostart the given program that came to your mind?
    No. Actualy the first tool which came in my mind was aPackage. It has tiny ~6 KB stub but it has some issues. First of all aPackage itself and output SFXes are causing false antivirus alerts. More exactly speaking Win32.HLLW.MyBot. Seems that some not very good person used aPackage for wrapping the evil stuff. Second. aPackage has no option for just storing the files, aPLib compression used anyway and its results was about 30 KB larger than uncompressed size. I tried to unpack the stub but failed. Seems its packed with 32Lite 0.03. Then yes, WinRAR SFX. Small and with usefull functionality. As you see it works

    What did you use to compress PAQ? My PEID definitions fail here.
    I think you guessed the name of the packer by viewing the stub in HEX, cause its same packer used for RAR SFX. Damn, how I forgot to clear the header
    Its kkrunchy v0.23a4_asm07. Totally impractical for common tasks cause it uses PAQ based compression with small decompression code which is very good for DemoScene its aimed for. Well, PAQ packed by PAQ
    By the way, here is the little present for you.

    Code:
    [kkrunchy 0.23 (a3\a3neu\a3neuneu\a4asm07) -> Ryg]
    signature = BD ?? ?? ?? ?? C7 45 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? B8 ?? ?? ?? ?? 89 45 04 89 45 58 50 C7 45 10 ?? ?? ?? ?? FF 4D 0C FF 45 14 FF 45 5C C6 45 1C 08 B8 00 08 00 00 8D 7D 30 AB AB AB AB AB BB 00 00 D8 00 BF ?? ?? ?? ?? 31 C9 41 8D 74 09 01 B8 CA 8E 2A 2E 99 F7 F6 01 C3 89 D8 C1 E8 15 AB FE C1 75 E8 BE ?? ?? ?? ?? 31 DB B1 04 83 F3 01 8A 24 1F 80 FC 02 76 0F 0F B6 C4 8B 04 85 ?? ?? ?? ?? C1 E0 02 FE
    ep_only = true

  15. #15
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Skymmer View Post
    Thanks



    No. Actualy the first tool which came in my mind was aPackage. It has tiny ~6 KB stub but it has some issues. First of all aPackage itself and output SFXes are causing false antivirus alerts. More exactly speaking Win32.HLLW.MyBot. Seems that some not very good person used aPackage for wrapping the evil stuff. Second. aPackage has no option for just storing the files, aPLib compression used anyway and its results was about 30 KB larger than uncompressed size. I tried to unpack the stub but failed. Seems its packed with 32Lite 0.03. Then yes, WinRAR SFX. Small and with usefull functionality. As you see it works



    I think you guessed the name of the packer by viewing the stub in HEX, cause its same packer used for RAR SFX. Damn, how I forgot to clear the header
    Its kkrunchy v0.23a4_asm07. Totally impractical for common tasks cause it uses PAQ based compression with small decompression code which is very good for DemoScene its aimed for. Well, PAQ packed by PAQ
    By the way, here is the little present for you.
    Yes, I identified the stub by first looking at it in a binary files viewer, then reading memory when it was unpacked...strangely my PEID guessed correctly that it's a rar sfx (most likely it recognizes the rar header), but I didn't believe it.
    Thanks for the signature.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    239
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post

  17. #17
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Yes, this is the biggest problem of PE packers - antivirus alerts. All companies I've seen so far are lazy to include the proper detection and static unpacking routine for every packer around. I even seen the false alert on file protected with well known Themida protector. Well, with endless bag of Chinese packers its almost impossible. Although there are some diamonds in there, like Upack for example

  18. #18
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Skymmer View Post
    Yes, this is the biggest problem of PE packers - antivirus alerts. All companies I've seen so far are lazy to include the proper detection and static unpacking routine for every packer around. I even seen the false alert on file protected with well known Themida protector. Well, with endless bag of Chinese packers its almost impossible. Although there are some diamonds in there, like Upack for example
    Yes, once I distributed a program packed with Upack. After some time people started telling me about false positives. I screwed them (it was a 30-minute one built on request, I didn't want to give any support).
    After a year sb. showed me a Virustotal scan showing 85% positives, 1 or 2 were correctly recognizing Upack, the rest showed some random stuff.

    Antiviruses are crappy nowadays...

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Saint Petersburg, Russia
    Posts
    215
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    And they will always be.

    GNU/Linux ftw

  20. #20
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nanoflooder View Post
    And they will always be.

    GNU/Linux ftw
    Yes, they can't be perfect, but the current situation it's really bad...

    But Linux is not a solution. Currently ~1% of computers use it. Majority of them is administrated by geeks or professionals. It's not a good target for crapware now, but when it becomes popular (if ever), it won't be safe anymore.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Saint Petersburg, Russia
    Posts
    215
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    If this was an OS-related forum (or topic) I woulda told you the main difference in security of Windows and Unix-like systems, and why Windows can be damaged by crapware (and there is no real way to "escape" from that) and *nix don't, but that's quite a long story, so I won't kill your time with that

  22. #22
    Member Vacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    523
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hello everyone,

    If this was an OS-related forum (or topic) I woulda told you the main difference in security of Windows and Unix-like systems, and why Windows can be damaged by crapware (and there is no real way to "escape" from that) and *nix don't, but that's quite a long story, so I won't kill your time with that

    http://encode.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=194


    Best regards!

  23. #23
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vacon View Post
    Hello everyone,



    http://encode.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=194


    Best regards!
    You're right, thank you for this suggestion. Encode, could you move this OT there?

    If this was an OS-related forum (or topic) I woulda told you the main difference in security of Windows and Unix-like systems, and why Windows can be damaged by crapware (and there is no real way to "escape" from that) and *nix don't, but that's quite a long story, so I won't kill your time with that

    There is only one big issue with Windows - it's users who prefer comfort over security and work with admin rights. There are technical ones, but much smaller. Patchable, but MS has no reason to patch some holes (like SetWindowsHookEx) because nobody uses them for malicious stuff. And nobody uses them because when you have admin rights, you don't need them.
    I know Linux very little, but I seriously doubt it's security is unbreakable. Though I'd like to read a bit more about it's security concepts. I don't ask you to elaborate, but if you know some good overview, I'd gladly read it.
    If you want to drop it off your heart, that's good for me too.

Similar Threads

  1. M1 - Optimized demo coder
    By toffer in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 21st July 2010, 23:49
  2. pbzip2 1.05 optimized compile
    By M4ST3R in forum Download Area
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd October 2009, 16:21
  3. New 7zip SFXs optimization !!!
    By Yuri Grille. in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 4th May 2009, 23:42
  4. Compressor+sfx ?
    By egor in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 1st April 2009, 01:59
  5. quad-sfx is here!
    By encode in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 29th April 2007, 11:44

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •