Hi,
i wrote:
> >Does any of the bystanders know from what package this message text stems ?
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> That's cdrom-checker:
So that would be indirectly put into the code at
https://sources.debian.org/src/cdrom-checker/1.62/main.c/?hl=152#L152
by "Template:
Hey Thomas!
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:15:53AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
>As for a better message from Integrity Check:
>
>I find in the ISO in file /install.amd/initrd.gz the lines:
> "The file ${FILE} failed the MD5 checksum verification. Your installation"
> "media or this file may have
Hi,
trying to get our mails in sync again. We seem to have reached consensus
in our understanding of the problem.
i wrote:
> > might possibly be "WPSettings.dat", which causes questions in the
> > internet.
Ram Reddy wrote:
> I think that this could possibly be explained by flaws in my testing.
Hi,
Ram Reddy wrote:
> Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > FWIW check the BIOS L[123] cache settings [...]
This was posted by Nicholas Geovanis , not by me.
My suspicion is that the Lenovo Legion EFI BIOS intentionally creates
directories and empty file "/efi/Lenovo/BIOS/SelfHealing.fd".
I do not see
Hi,
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> In Legion7iG5-*_modified.esp the suspect lost its ID card at the crime scene:
> At byte 39072 (0x98a0) the changes go from 0-bytes to the text "LENOVO".
> At byte 9711680 (0x943040) i see a change from 0-bytes to "BIOS".
> [...]
> Diffing the result of "find" on
Hello,
Thomas Schmitt wrote:FWIW check the BIOS L[123] cache settings and
consider changing them to
> more conservative "slower" values if possible. And you have different RAM
For changing the BIOS L[1/2/3] cache settings, these are laptop BIOSes
which usually have very few features (other than
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, 3:30 AM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> .
> This seems to indicate that the firmware has a stake in the problem ...
>
> > Both the Thinkpad E14 Gen 5s had the same specifications and type number,
> > differing only in that the one with corruption of the installer has 24GB
> of
>
Hi,
Ram Reddy wrote:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zd6iufVRsfIu-qzC-tJx4FEvCOESOz4_/view?usp=sharing
I downloaded the tarball and compared the original FAT filesystem with the
various modified filesystem images.
--
In
Hi,
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Maybe we can learn more by comparing the files /boot/grub/efi.img of the
> original ISO and of an altered USB stick.
> iso=/dev/sdX
> and then
> dd bs=512 if="$iso" of="$iso".esp skip=4476 count=18976
I tried doing that for the times the drive was modified, and they
Hi,
Ram Reddy wrote:
> I tested the installer on one of my laptops, and found that its contents
> didn't change.
Good to know that the software in the ISO still works from read-only DVDs.
> On the Lenovo Legion 7i Gen 5*, Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen 2*, Lenovo
> Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen 5
Hello,
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to check whether any errors get reported if the
> ISO is presented on a read-only CD or DVD instead of a writable USB stick.
Hello, thank you for the help. The DVD+Rs arrived, along with the DVD
Drive. I tested the installer on one of my
Hello,
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> I'd say that corruption of ISO image or USB is quite unlikely.
>[ . . . ]
>It would be interesting to check whether any errors get reported if the
> ISO is presented on a read-only CD or DVD instead of a writable USB stick.
Thank you for the suggestion for trying
Hi,
Ram Reddy wrote:
> [...] usb drive [...] debian-12.2.0-amd64-netinst.iso [...]
> [...] Integrity Test section [...]
> ./boot/grub/efi.img failed the MD5 checksum verification. Your installation
> media or this file may have been corrupted.
> [...]
> It was always byte 2303211, line 21165
Package: cdrom
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: raamredd...@gmail.com
Dear Maintainer,
I have downloaded a debian 12.2.0 netinst and verified its integrity with
sha512sum -c --ignore-missing SHA512SUMS
and wrote it to a usb drive with
dd bs=2048 if=debian-12.2.0-amd64-netinst.iso of=/dev/sda
14 matches
Mail list logo
