.ZIP Standard to Fragment? 627
fudgefactor7 writes "As IDG.NET tells us, the venerable .ZIP compression standard is about to undergo a bit of a schism. PKWare and WinZip, the "big two" in the .ZIP format biz are (unfortunately) going to be making their respective releases incompatible (to an extent) and an archive made with one may not be accessible from another. The problem lies with PKWare not giving information to WinZip, thus making WinZip to go it alone."
More importantly.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What will my unix *zip programs be compatible with?
Re:More importantly.. (Score:5, Informative)
Neither PKWare nor WinZip encrypt archived files by default. This means the vast majority of
So it sounds like the only change is in the encryption methods used in each program.
Re:More importantly.. (Score:2, Informative)
Even More Importantly.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you use GnuPG(GPG) [gnupg.org] or PGP [pgpi.org] to encrypt your files, you get compression [pgpi.org] too. There is absolutely NO reason to use a nonstandard compression utility to do low quality encryption.
Re:More importantly.. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand PKWare's method isn't so great either. I've generally gone to using IZArc which can encrypt files using 256bit AES.
Re:More importantly.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More importantly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And come to think of it, what further changes are they planning anyway? The zip format is very much standard and making something new that cant open zip files will not work, nor will compressing files in a format in which most unzippers will fail. The market itself
The joke's on them... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More importantly.. (Score:5, Funny)
Zip.
Re:More importantly.. (Score:3, Funny)
Zips and Zips and Zips (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More importantly.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If PKWare suddenly closes their format, and if WinZip keeps theirs open, then it looks like WinZip will win by default.
It seems that we've been down this road countless times before. The way to win marketshare in the tech sector is to keep things open and allow other companies to champion your standard for you.
Re:More importantly.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:More importantly.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:More importantly.. (Score:3, Informative)
I think that ZIP is more like .bz2.tar instead of .tar.bz2. This means that you can extract individual files without decompressing the whole archive. This is probably why Sun went with ZIP for JAR files (because it's convenient to get at some .class files without unzipping the whole thing).
This difference is also probably why .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 are usually smaller than ZIP archives. I don't think ZIP runs different files together so it can't take advantage of longer streams.
Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
It is too bad that they split, but I use Zip files for compression not encryption. The compression is still cross-compatible, so life will go on.
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
I for one have long since encrypted Zip files with PGP when I needed that security
PGP zips files before encrypting them. At least older versions did. See this page [rasip.fer.hr]
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
So, try tar or compress-less zip to package up a bunch of files and then encrypt with PGP/GPG.
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the header will match the magic bytes, but that is also true of nearly any file format. All DOS executables start with MZ, GIF's start with a specific set of bytes. Linux executables normally start with EL
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:2)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
From Pkware's web store [pkzipstore.com]:
# Virtually Unlimited
# More Files-per-archive allows a practically unlimited number of files files per
These two limitations used to appear in old versions of PKZip (2.04G and earlier), and still appear in the open-source (BSD license) Info-ZIP utilities, upon which WinZip is based. Thus for large zip files, WinZip and PKZip are already incompatible (i.e., WinZip doesn't support anything larger than 4GB, and supports a max of 65,535 files inside a Zip file -- WinZip will NOT read these files). I think there's also a mention of new compression methods not supported by WinZip as well, but I couldn't seem find it again.
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be the unix way, but it's not the efficient way.
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the Unix way allows compression of the collection of files as a whole, rather than per-file.
To take an extreme example, consider tar-ing and gzip-ing the
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:3, Funny)
This is clearly one area where MS have learned from Eunuchs.
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:3, Interesting)
espically now. I recoeverd 3 Zip files last week from an employee's laptop who was "let go" and "forgot" what the password was.
Most of the zip cracking apps on the net are trivial and quite powerful when you put a 3ghz P4 behind it.
Re:Splitting Those ZIPs (Score:5, Informative)
Reverse engineering? (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks for any insight!
D - M - C - A (Score:5, Funny)
Can I get a D?!?!
D!!!
Can I get an M?!?!
M!!!
Can I get a C?!?!
C!!!
Can I get an A?!?!
A!!!
What's that spell!?!?
Tyranny!
What's that spell!?!?
Bunch of assholes in Congress!
What's that spell!?!?
Lack of Innovation!
Dunno if either side would be big enough assholes to try it, but why couldn't you use DMCA there?
W - R - O - N - G (Score:3, Informative)
Re:W - R - O - N - G (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:W - R - O - N - G (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:W - R - O - N - G (Score:4, Interesting)
The CSS encryption standard was well known, so one could easily write a functioning DeCSS program without violating the DMCA---with one significant exception: the encryption keys were not made public. Reverse engineering was used to retrieve those keys and thereby make DeCSS a functioning program.
With PKZip, the encryption method is not known and must be reverse-engineered, but the encryption keys are externally supplied by the user. Therefore, you aren't circumventing any copy protection by reverse-engineering PKZip's protection, because you still can't "break" the copy protection of any ZIP file whose key you do not know.
Re:W - R - O - N - G (Score:3, Interesting)
The necessity of having DeCSS to allow Linux users to view DVDs is questionable? By whom? On what grounds? What's the alternative? I don't know of any way to play a DVD on Linux that doesn't involve DeCSS.
DeCSS gives people the ability to copy DVDs? What was keeping me from copying them before? Put the DVD in the drive, copy the file(s) to your hard drive. Burn to another DVD if you like. No DeCSS required. The copied DVD plays just fine.
Limiting pla
Re:W - R - O - N - G (Score:3, Informative)
DeCSS Did nothing to prevent playback of anything, nor was it it's purpose.
The ONLY purpose of DeCSS was as a method for the DVd Consortium to reap license fees on the tech. DeCSS licensed *players*, not copyright holders. Piracy isn't the concern of the DVD Consortium with DeCSS - loss of revenue due to unlicensed *players* is.
And By the way, the Law doesn't say that reverse-engineering is legal only if the result isn't "too easy to circumvent the technology". The law shouldn't (and doesn't) care.
Re:W - R - O - N - G (Score:3, Interesting)
The DMCA explicitly allows you to go broke defending against frivolous lawsuits, trying to educate the judicial system about what constitutes interoperability.
After all, if it is compatible with the new format, then you must have stolen intellectual property, violated a trade secret, or done some other dastardly deed. After all, the proof of your crimes is obvious and evident: it goes against the wishes of a corporation.
Uh huh (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who assumes that the way a law is written is the same as its implementation, or better yet, its ability to be used as a legal bludgeon, REALLY needs to get a clue.
Re:Reverse engineering? (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:3, Funny)
I LOVE you Winzip!
I LOVE you, PKZip!
*hugs all around*
There, isn't that better?
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on how they handle it (Score:5, Interesting)
And how much time will it be before someone just writes a program that handles both formats natively? RAR, ACE, and all the other compressors already do handle Zip file just fine.
Re:Depends on how they handle it (Score:5, Funny)
Seems to accurately reflect the idea that WinZip is still a Work In Progress, eh?
Re:Depends on how they handle it (Score:2)
So, in actuality, it sounds like perhaps PKWare is setting themselves up to no longer *be* the standard. Putting out a product incompatible with the others isn't going to help them win friends and influence people, not when most everybody I know is using the Winzip product. I myself haven't even looked at PKWare since
Just use WinRAR. (Score:5, Interesting)
tar zxvf
gzip
What else exists?
Oh yea I forgot
Did we miss the point, here? (Score:3, Insightful)
So switching doesn't do a hell of a lot of good unless you switch to theirs. Which is probably the plan, I guess.
How annoying! (Score:5, Funny)
History repeats (Score:2)
Ehhh...I'll just keep using WinRar (Score:2, Redundant)
Simple solution... (Score:2)
Zip encryption's pretty useless, anyhow. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if a fork occurs in a feature which nobody uses, does it make a sound?
Re:Zip encryption's pretty useless, anyhow. (Score:5, Interesting)
The company firewall will not allow certain kinds of files though (read things like source code and exes) - fair enough, but even if you zip the file, the block it. This not only occurs through the firewall, but inside the company too. So when we want to send a file, we zip with encryption. They can't open it to see what is inside, so they let it through
Depends on dumping. (Score:4, Insightful)
It does when the company in question starts dumping product and people start using it. Just let them promote the useless feature and wait for the ass pains to set in. If they are dumping a "client" ala Adobe PDF, people can say, "Don't complain, the client is free." Ugh, at least Adobe released file specs.
If a company decides to go 20 years retro and create a new non free file format, that's just one more dumb format to get in the way. You would hope that people knew better by now, but they don't. Witness the growing popularity of M$.DOC, the dumbest way to exchange text ever.
Re:Zip encryption's pretty useless, anyhow. (Score:3, Insightful)
AES what (how many bits)? And how do they collect entropy? How do they generate the IV? Are there password complexity rules, or at least warnings on insecure passwords?
The actual encryption algorithm is but one small factor in determining the security of a system. People who say thinngs like, "It uses AES, so its secure," are the ones that the NSA, CIA, and FBI encourage, because they're the ones that can be easily
Not that serious (Score:3, Insightful)
*shrug* (Score:2)
PKWare vs. WinZip? (Score:5, Insightful)
non issue .. (Score:2)
In fact the last paragraph of the article states that this is a non-issue
Re:non issue .. (Score:5, Informative)
Does it really matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the basic format isn't changing. It's just the encryption part, so zip files will still be usuable by nearly everyone.
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I use the "trial" version of Winzip (You've been using this for 683 days! This isn't free!) and since I *never* compress and I only uncompress when I download a new Quake/HL mod, its no biggie which utility I use.
I think this entire thing is getting blown *way* out of perspective. At risk of being repetetetive and a noing:
Who gives a crap about zip encryption?
Compatibility (Score:2, Funny)
Compression employed on this sentence may cause incompatibility with standard English.
best Winzip feature (Score:5, Funny)
Try something new (Score:5, Informative)
I like 7-zip, it's free, has a context menu, supports tar.gz (which the native WinXP unzipper doesn't do) and it's light-weight.
Phil Katz .. the most depressing guy ever (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Phil Katz .. the most depressing guy ever (Score:4, Funny)
The genius who built a multimillion-dollar software company known worldwide for its pioneering "zip" files had died of acute pancreatic bleeding caused by chronic alcoholism.
Bizarre, I get pancreatic bleeding whenever I read any of John Katz's old articles.
Wonder if they are related.
Your joking!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Surely, you jest.
Altp.
PKWare. Hmmm. Seems to me I've heard about that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, since WinZip is compatible with
uh, bzip2 anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Following the Big Boys... (Score:2, Insightful)
PGP as the new competitor (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems as if PKWare and Winzip are moving into the realm that is dominated by PGP and the GNU variant. PGP compresses the data when it encrypts it, so that need was taken care of already. I wouldn't use either Winzip or PKZip to send an encrypted zip file, because PGP is more universally known, and can give you 2048 bit encryption.
AFAIK, the actual zip standard hasn't changed, which means that you'll be able to open zip files with either program (or the WinXP shell... heh). That's what I see most zip files being used for anyway... Windows based shareware / freeware. Stuff where encryption is not necessary.
The venerable tar.gz and tar.bz2 formats, thankfully, will not be dictated by stupid companies. :-)
And I suspect.... (Score:2)
-JDF
tar | gzip | pgp (Score:2)
Who the hell are PKWare? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I do know the answer to that, and so do most of you, but the hordes of Windows users out there do not.
What will happen is that the WinZip will win this feud, simply because it is what people use.
...and since the problem stems from PK not sharing information, UNIX zip implementations will likely behave in the same manner as WinZip.
Does it really matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember these? (Score:5, Funny)
I miss the BBS days where you needed about 10 compression programs.
This just in: MS-DOS Standard To Fragment!!! (Score:3, Funny)
All five remaining DOS users are likely to be severely complacement. For more information on this stunning development, we asked...
PKWare is dead, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, memory serves that Philip W. Katz, the late founder of PKWare, worked with IDC to make the ZIP file format public domain, both because it wasn't entirely original to either organization, and also because it would never take off were it not. So here then we have PKWare, in the wake of the death of Katz, trying to "pull a Microsoft" and make their version incompatible with others in the hopes that more people will use their version. For that matter, I think PKWare's main claim to fame for years now has been that they were "the first".
However this has the potential to backfire. PKWare may be trying to "pull a Microsoft" but they are not Microsoft and so now they're in the position where their product now creates the incompatible file. A file made with PKZip may not work with others, a file made with WinZip almost definitely will.
Aww great.. (Score:5, Funny)
They're hardly zip files (Score:5, Informative)
The unfortunate part is that this is even being called "zip" at all. These aren't, they're zip with proprietary extensions for a completely different purpose. Zip is being used as a brand name and being "embraced and extended". Truth be told these should now be called zep or something files, not misrepresented as simply zip compressed files.
What will this all break? Well for the suckers who use the encryption they're locking themselves into that one vendor's proprietary extensions. They won't be able to send their compressed files or archives and reliably assume they'll be readable. With zip now a standard part of many OS's (even WinXP now includes it) these mislabeled files will cause confusion and increased complexity.
What can folks do about this? First reconsider corporate licenses for these increasingly un-zip applications. No need to increase the Help Desk's burden with unnecessary/non-standard extensions. Send out a memo reminding folks about policies regarding encrypting company material, the management of the keys used, and the real quality of the encryption used. Look at the free alternatives to the commercial apps, there's little that these applications do that can't be done just as well with free tools.
Zip's value lies in it being a standard. Don't support inappropriate proprietary extensions to it.
Winzip's "standard" will win by default (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
As I am sure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As I am sure (Score:3, Interesting)
If you only use *nix systems then yes, that is correct.
However for many years the Windows standard of compressing files has been the zip. Ask a standard Windows user what a tar, bz2, or tgz file is and will have no clue.
While it's always good to have a *nix perspective on things here on
Why tar/gz and tar/bz2 suck, compared with zip (Score:5, Interesting)
You can stick with the tape archiver if you want. You'll have the pleasure of waiting for your massive single file to finish decompressing, so you can then sequentially search the resulting decompressed archive for the files you actually wanted.
In the meantime, I'll be plucking decompressed files right out of the middle of my zip archives, in a fraction of the time.
Incidentally, if you're so anal about your compression ratio, why not compress with a good compressor (like bzip2) and archive with a good archiver (like zip)?
Re:Why tar/gz and tar/bz2 suck, compared with zip (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the difference between gadget freaks and users. Most users extract single files so rarely that they really don't need an entirely different format. For the once-in-a-blue-moon event that they have to find a single file, they probably just untar the whole archive, find the file by browsing the directory tree, and then delete the tree. But gadget freaks are so happy to have ju
You know what I find funny about all this? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also funny how people are still using a archiving format thats been around since 1988 at least, it's OLD and compresses like crap. Especially when there are SUPERIOR and much better compression formats out there such as
ARJ
JAR
RAR
UC2
ACE
All of these formats compress better then ZIP, yet you are hard pressed to find ARJ/ACE/JAR/UC2 files on the net, RAR files you may find here and there.
And the winner is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Against the ZIP format's origins - Zip history 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the DOS days (1986?) there was a format called ARC used by the program arc. Everyone used it on the BBSes. Phil Katz came up with his own programs, pkarc and pkxarc. One created, one extracted. He added a new compression scheme and his apps were *much* faster.
BBSes converted. When everyone is on 8088s and 2400 baud, every bit and cpu cycle counts.
arc sued PK and won. PK had some arc code in pkarc/pkxarc or something. PK vowed neither he nor anyone else would be in that position and released the zip format.
At the time, there was zoo, lha also competing. zoo was cross platform (DOS, Unix, VMS). lha was small and fast, producing small archives. zip aimed to be both.
BBSes converted overnight. The arc format disappeared. Other formats persisted for awhile, but zip stayed mainstream.
It's sad that PKware is on the other side of this...
Nico Mak?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Windows ZIP (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides I get really sick of having to provide multiple copies of source code just because Windows programmers can't figure out what to do with a tarball. C'mon! Programmers should know these things.
Re:Are they stupid? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Karma-Burning Gripe on Link Style (Score:3, Funny)