Win 11 64 bit
I have some archives which have been encrypted, using the encrypt option either in pbs or when interactively creating a zip. When I open these, and look at files, I am asked for passwords, which I know, and then can view items or decrypt the files in the archive (tools>decrypt files).
However, when I use the Actions>Remove Archive Encryption (whether using the same zip or asking to write another), the routine shows progress bar to the end, but then just hangs i.e. “OK” never activates. All process information shows this stalled/hanging.
What can I do to sort this out?
Download this ZIP file: http://dslstats.me.uk/files/dslstats32W-6.5.zip
Everything in the ZIP file is in a directory “dslstats32W-6.5”.
However when I extract using right click “Extract Here” the name of the directory created is “2W-6.5” !
I am running PA 22.00.09 on Windows 11. I have seen the same happen with some other kinds of archive too.
If I compress a folder to a .pa using right click, Compress to folder.pa and use the new Windows 11 menu then the Options, Configuration, Miscellaneous, Use normal relative path setting is always enabled.
But I like this option disabled so I have to use the old style menu in order to get PA to compress a folder in the way I wish.
Just tried using the Modern (Windows 10) Icon set and seeing a few missing icons in both PowerArchiver Burner and PowerArchiver Encryption screens . They are all there in the Minimalistik icon set and the only difference I can see is the former is blue and the latter grey. In version 22.00.9
there were some security issues fixed in 7zip:
As it seems, that PowerArchiver and PACL use the 7zip libraries, could you please update them to the latest version?
I noticed that the version of ZPAQ used is older than the latest released 7.15 https://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html also there seems to be a newer fork that adds several features https://github.com/fcorbelli/zpaqfranz
It would be useful to implement this latest version (it also maintains the same syntax and behavior as the latest official release if used the -715 flag) and add when opening a zpaq file a choice of the version of the files to show (e.g. as dummy folders represented the various versions present). Since any previous changes are stored with this format, it is possible to extract a snapshot of a certain date/version.
If I open a password-protected zipper file (created with WinRAR but I think that’s irrelevant), open it with PowerArchiver and run “Remove Encryption” on the same file, then reopen it and add a password with “Encrypt Archive,” the resulting archive will be protected with the old ZipCrypto algorithm and not AES as indicated.
(this can be verified, for example, by trying to open the archive files with Windows Explorer, which does not support the AES algorithm)
Review of Windows Archivers
I found this while browsing OSNEWS
PowerArchiver doesn’t seem to do so well, but according to the chart they tested PA using Seven zip compression. I imagine it would have been better if zip were used. Later on in the review it says that even at zip compresion PA is slow. I find this hard to understand. I find PA quite speedy and I don’t have a top end computer. Mind you I rarely have files over a gig in size to archive so unless one is archiving 1gb+ files 24/7 I can’t imagine many people would find PowerArchiver slow.
heh, interesting… Only thing I dont understand was why would PA have larger 7zip file? Also, why would 7zip create same size file as WR? Whenever I tested, there was quite an nice difference towards 7zip… Maybe files tested could not have been compressed a whole lot more (already compressed files), which would explain a lot…
I briefly tested PA’s zip and it was fine… when files were not cached slightly faster than WR, when they were cached (after 5-6 compressions) slightly slower. All in all, differences were minimal both ways.
I would suppose they could have tried Deflate64 option in PA, which is certainly slower… but then again WR doesnt have that option at all, as well as pretty basic total zip support.
Obviously author slightly favored his favorite app :-), but PA review was pretty decent, I wish more was explained on what and how was tested as I am pretty sure that PA’s zip engine is darn nice.
p.s. lets not turn this into argument over who has this or that, or thread will be closed. I always hated PA vs the world arguments because they attracted casual visitors with no interest in PA. Thanks!
the review is OK I think. The only thing which I am missing, is that there are no infos about the version numbers and how they make the comrpession test
old and closed.