A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding
them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:56 this Thursday (GMT):

A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding
them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Compatibility?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:56 this Thursday (GMT):

A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding
them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

Infozip has 'zipsplit', but it splits a zip up file by file, and if one
file is 4G, one of the output zips is also 4G.

7-zip may provide this "slice/reassemble" ability now (I don't know, I
don't make much of any use of it) but "legacy compatibility with the
way it has always been done" in "the scene" keeps 'rar' as the thing.

When one then obtains one of those files via other mechanisms
(bittorrent, alt.binaries.*, etc.) sometimes whomever posted the files
there simply leaves them as the original 'rar'.


Of course, for those of us with Linux/Unix backgrounds, we simply saw
windoze users recreating, badly, that which we already had available in
our toolset (split --bytes=1000000 big_file big_file_, followed later
by cat big_file_* > big_file to reasemble).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:18:02 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:56 this Thursday (GMT):

A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding
them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

Infozip has 'zipsplit', but it splits a zip up file by file, and if one
file is 4G, one of the output zips is also 4G.

7-zip may provide this "slice/reassemble" ability now (I don't know, I
don't make much of any use of it) but "legacy compatibility with the
way it has always been done" in "the scene" keeps 'rar' as the thing.

When one then obtains one of those files via other mechanisms
(bittorrent, alt.binaries.*, etc.) sometimes whomever posted the files
there simply leaves them as the original 'rar'.

Of course, for those of us with Linux/Unix backgrounds, we simply saw
windoze users recreating, badly, that which we already had available in
our toolset (split --bytes=1000000 big_file big_file_, followed later
by cat big_file_* > big_file to reasemble).

Also recovery record was kinda useful in times of floppies and dial-up
modems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archive_formats#Comparison

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

<snip>

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

<snip>

Probably for Windows viruses too. I am getting rar
attachments in spam and all the rar files contain a
Windows exe File. To me, these are obvious viriuses.

I have not used any M/S systems for a very long time, so
all I can do is hex dump the exec. So I cannot tell what
they will attempt to do.


--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

<snip>

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

<snip>

Probably for Windows viruses too. I am getting rar
attachments in spam and all the rar files contain a
Windows exe File. To me, these are obvious viriuses.

Yes, malware of some form. Those are 'rar'ed to try to hide the
contained exe from email filters/scanners that will remove a file named
*.exe. Rar was likely chosen because some better filters will look
inside zip files but were never written to also look inside rar. And
since W11's file explorer now knows how to open rar files, the scammers
get to "bypass email filters" and still "get their target to run their
exe".

A trick to bypassing most of the filters (when you do actually want to
send an exe) is to just rename the exe file (as the filters were all
written by windoze users who have been brainwashed by MS that the only
way to detect the type of a file is looking at the extension on the
filename). notepad.eze passes right through the filters, you just have
to tell the recipient to rename it exe once they extract it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 17:18 this Thursday (GMT):

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:56 this Thursday (GMT):

A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding
them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

Infozip has 'zipsplit', but it splits a zip up file by file, and if one
file is 4G, one of the output zips is also 4G.

7-zip may provide this "slice/reassemble" ability now (I don't know, I
don't make much of any use of it) but "legacy compatibility with the
way it has always been done" in "the scene" keeps 'rar' as the thing.

When one then obtains one of those files via other mechanisms
(bittorrent, alt.binaries.*, etc.) sometimes whomever posted the files
there simply leaves them as the original 'rar'.

Of course, for those of us with Linux/Unix backgrounds, we simply saw
windoze users recreating, badly, that which we already had available in
our toolset (split --bytes=1000000 big_file big_file_, followed later
by cat big_file_* > big_file to reasemble).

I'll also point out that tar supports splitting up files between
archives (i believe), and you can even extract files out of a single
archive as long as the whole file is stored there. Not sure if that
trick works if you add compression, but it's there.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/06/2025 01:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding
them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Because they have bought a licence.


--
Regards
wasbit

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 17:18 this Thursday (GMT):

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:56 this Thursday (GMT): >>>> A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding

them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

Infozip has 'zipsplit', but it splits a zip up file by file, and if one
file is 4G, one of the output zips is also 4G.

7-zip may provide this "slice/reassemble" ability now (I don't know, I
don't make much of any use of it) but "legacy compatibility with the
way it has always been done" in "the scene" keeps 'rar' as the thing.

When one then obtains one of those files via other mechanisms
(bittorrent, alt.binaries.*, etc.) sometimes whomever posted the files
there simply leaves them as the original 'rar'.


Of course, for those of us with Linux/Unix backgrounds, we simply saw
windoze users recreating, badly, that which we already had available in
our toolset (split --bytes=1000000 big_file big_file_, followed later
by cat big_file_* > big_file to reasemble).

I'll also point out that tar supports splitting up files between
archives (i believe), and you can even extract files out of a single
archive as long as the whole file is stored there.

Yes it does (I forgot about its ability to do so) and was very
necessary when using it for its designed purpose (streaming the archive
to tape) given that each tape is of finite length.

And it is also another example of a tool that those who know only
winblows would not know existed and so they would be inclined to
"recreate something similar, and poorly".

Not sure if that trick works if you add compression, but it's there.

Since compression is added after the "tar" processing, it has no
bearing on the splitting.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:32:11 +0100, wasbit wrote:

On 26/06/2025 01:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding them
as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Because they have bought a licence.

Sunk-cost fallacy?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 16:37 this Friday (GMT):

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 17:18 this Thursday (GMT):

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:56 this Thursday (GMT): >>>>> A few times, I have downloaded .rar archives and tried re-encoding

them as .7z. In every case, the 7-Zip version was smaller.

Why would anybody bother with .rar any more?

<https://www.tomshardware.com/software/winrar-exploit-enables-attackers-to-run-malicious-code-on-your-pc-critical-vulnerability-patched-in-latest-beta-update>

Compatibility?

The more common reason is that rar is used in "the scene" for video
files (I believe because it was first, way back, with the ability to
split a larger than X size file into X sized chunks as part of creating
the archive). And then taking the resulting "rars" and upon
extraction, recreating that "larger than X" file.

Infozip has 'zipsplit', but it splits a zip up file by file, and if one
file is 4G, one of the output zips is also 4G.

7-zip may provide this "slice/reassemble" ability now (I don't know, I
don't make much of any use of it) but "legacy compatibility with the
way it has always been done" in "the scene" keeps 'rar' as the thing.

When one then obtains one of those files via other mechanisms
(bittorrent, alt.binaries.*, etc.) sometimes whomever posted the files
there simply leaves them as the original 'rar'.


Of course, for those of us with Linux/Unix backgrounds, we simply saw
windoze users recreating, badly, that which we already had available in
our toolset (split --bytes=1000000 big_file big_file_, followed later
by cat big_file_* > big_file to reasemble).

I'll also point out that tar supports splitting up files between
archives (i believe), and you can even extract files out of a single
archive as long as the whole file is stored there.

Yes it does (I forgot about its ability to do so) and was very
necessary when using it for its designed purpose (streaming the archive
to tape) given that each tape is of finite length.

And it is also another example of a tool that those who know only
winblows would not know existed and so they would be inclined to
"recreate something similar, and poorly".

Oh right, the classic trick of splitting stuff up between multiple tapes
:D

Not sure if that trick works if you add compression, but it's there.

Since compression is added after the "tar" processing, it has no
bearing on the splitting.

Good to know!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)