@Admin

Tried downloading new firmware for Vigor2860 from:

https://www.draytek.co.uk/support/downloads/vigor-2860

I do not get the same checksum on the downloaded firmware (v2860_388_BT.zip) as listed on the web-page.

The md5sum listed on the web-page is 4135cfb122992d4255851316bdc36482 : the value I get is 764f32aa53f86911e63e07533a12eaa3 for v2860_388_BT.zip
The sha1sum listed on the web-page is 9486a1abe03aac81c3ae8c031ea4f4798c9802be : the value I get is 525f757e3c2790be6b62e5963c65dbe5160309d1 for v2860_388_BT.zip

If I download the the user guide and release notes, the md5sums and sha1sums of the downloaded files match those listed on the web-page.

If I download firmware from draytek.com here (https://www.draytek.com/en/download/firmware/vigor2860-series/) and choose Vigor2860_v3.8.8-03v_en.zip, which is the correct firmware for Annexe-A modem code 576d17_572801 & 574307_571801, I get matching mf5 and sha1 checksums to the ones listed on that site ( http://www.draytek.com.tw/ftp/Vigor2860/Firmware/v3.8.8/FIRMWARE.DIGESTS )

Code:

// // File Checksum Integrity Verifier version 2.05. // MD5 SHA-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- eed42d1a89803bf8df0a057386f6aeab 69c561484e26696c1bce6b4508d57d8428fa1121 .\DrayTek_Vigor2860_V3.8.8_release-note.pdf 330f9353d222f5efd6dabaedae6775d7 908720ce86b1f1688eb9421a3a927077e3c274c6 .\Vigor2860_v3.8.8-00_en.zip 1942641387549c2713f383300325fe93 2921966bfc3d0099852bb775785be56dfd7f8729 .\Vigor2860_v3.8.8-01v_en.zip d88209ab2cea33f59705d3b437d59806 55aeb23a6c87bdf44a3c3b08fa5d6bbce0106ce5 .\Vigor2860_v3.8.8-02v_en.zip 3ef0fbede004076659cebffec41d9f96 8733ef2e4b095dd57a411df8df0a75aad99cedf8 .\Vigor2860_v3.8.8-03v_en.zip <<<---This >

I conclude that there is a problem with either the listed checksums or the firmware. Could you inform the necessary people to look into it, as I'd quite like to upgrade the firmware of my 2860!

Semreh

Just to add, the issue appears to have been silently addressed, and the checksums on the web-page are now the same as the ones I got on the downloaded files.

Note, I am posting from a new account, as I noticed the email address on the old 'semreh' account was out of date, so I attempted to update it. Unfortunately, it appears that the administration system is unable to cope with emails with a 'plus' sign in them, and I have got into a loop where my old account is not active, but cannot be activated because it cannot send a copy of the activation email to an email address which has a plus sign in it. So I have a new account: 'semrehplus'. Sigh. RFCs (in this case RFC 822) are not there to be ignored - it is a long standing problem in many places, as this web-page from 2002 attests - http://www.jacobsen.no/anders/blog/archives/2002/08/24/email_addresses_with_a_are_valid.html