Icecube, thank you for your time and help.
As I said before, I understand the differences between a FAT12 complete floppy image and an iso image.
Quote:
ISObuster finds files by looking for file signatures (magic bytes) in all sectors
In my system, not all the found files are found by their file signatures. I see an
additional list of files as part of a FAT section on the left panel. I wonder if this list is particular to my system, or everyone can see it after running "find missing files and folders" function of Isobuster.
(In my system) The first part of the list is:
Code:
LBA , DATE TIME , SIZE , PATHandFILENAME
43889363 , 1980-02-22 17:17:28 , 0.50 KB , >:\Ü€_uö.d
128131412 , 2031-01-14 00:30:00 , 0.50 KB , >:\€üu_.ö.È€
361688916 , 2003-05-30 14:40:00 , 0.50 KB , >:\ff…Àu..f‹f
488664499 , 2015-07-22 05:49:34 , 0.50 KB , >:\öÄ_…ˆ.€ü
1059098045 , 2031-01-15 14:42:06 , 0.50 KB , >:\¼€üu
ƒ.ùu
00000000 , 1980-01-01 00:00:00 , 0.00 KB , >:\.ÿ.¸f.
After that, the following files on the list are marked as "bad sectors" in Isobuster:
Code:
LBA , DATE TIME , SIZE , PATHandFILENAME
05214399 , 2049-09-14 05:03:46 , 488.89 MB , >:\÷f.÷f
15687335 , 2003-04-11 12:49:28 , 3.31 GB , >:\.ÿ6à.f.‹6Ì
68289170 , 1601-01-01 00:00:00 , 1.10 GB , >:\wjér_.f‹.ff
193232765 , 1601-01-01 00:00:00 , 736.23 MB , >:\Ís.€à.ë
244050253 , 2037-01-01 00:24:44 , 404.32 MB , >:\.÷f..Šv
558112451 , 2103-09-14 00:22:48 , 599.27 MB , >:\€ud.fƒ~.
906763645 , 1601-01-01 00:00:00 , 2.45 GB , >:\fd„..Šv
942970297 , 1601-01-01 00:00:00 , 1.01 GB , >:\ŽØŠu.ö.È
1059086320 , 2044-01-22 14:34:04 , 3.00 GB , >:\.ÿ6àrs..öf
Of course, the particular information of those lists doesn't make any sense.
In this context, the important thing is: I don't see those LBA numbers (or a similar range) as part of the regular files included in the ubcd503.iso in Isobuster.
So:
a ) Are you seeing the same FAT section found by the "find missing files and folders" function of Isobuster? Or only the files found by their signatures?
b ) Even using an algorithm, I can't see why Isobuster marks those blocks as "bad sectors". Moreover, those sectors are far away of the common LBA numbers I find on the "normal" files. Are you also seeing this "bad sectors" in your system? Or is it my particular system?
c ) Does Isobuster and Isoinfo are posting different information about LBA numbers? They should be the same numbers, shouldn't they?
TIA.