Asus-Merlin RT-N16 - Corrupt Build

[docbill]

It is probably a good idea to remove the final build from the repository. I downloaded it several times, and each time I got the error:

$ unzip -t RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.zip
Archive: RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.zip
testing: RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.trx bad CRC 82fca22f (should be 1f49318c)
testing: README-merlin.txt OK
testing: sha256sum.txt OK
At least one error was detected in RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.zip.

Nothing good will come from users attempting to install a corrupt file.

 

[RMerlin]

It unzips just fine here, using both Winrar and 7zip. Also, not a single other report of any issue out of the 23,000+ downloads on that file.

 

[L&LD]

Just tested it here for you too. IE 11, Windows 10.

Downloads, unzips and matches the file hash in the readme
9516557DF08E58F8BCB61B9B2F8D725CCDAF9509B70CBBD24A67D31ABA002FB5

What browser are you using? Try a different one or a different machine even.

 

[jeff288]

Downloaded it and checked the SHA256 sum myself and it's fine. CRC32 is pretty outdated. I'd recommend installing 7zip as it has a context menu for various quick checksums. Edit: I guess you're using linux so try another zip program. I've had a case where utorrent would give me a different checksum than another program so it's not out of the question.

 

[docbill]

Downloaded it and checked the SHA256 sum myself and it's fine. CRC32 is pretty outdated. I'd recommend installing 7zip as it has a context menu for various quick checksums. Edit: I guess you're using linux so try another zip program. I've had a case where utorrent would give me a different checksum than another program so it's not out of the question.

I noticed it was also significantly smaller that build 49. Which leads me to believe it is truncated. But if you are certain it is a false negative, I will try it. There is no issues unziping it, just the error when I verify the integrity of the file.

 

[RMerlin]

I noticed it was also significantly smaller that build 49. Which leads me to believe it is truncated. But if you are certain it is a false negative, I will try it. There is no issues unziping it, just the error when I verify the integrity of the file.

It's smaller because starting with that version, I removed the built-in Download Master package to save some space (and allow more space to be available to the JFFS partition).

 

[jeff288]

I noticed it was also significantly smaller that build 49. Which leads me to believe it is truncated. But if you are certain it is a false negative, I will try it. There is no issues unziping it, just the error when I verify the integrity of the file.

No, I don't recommend flashing it if the checksum doesn't verify. I think it'll be rejected if the router can't verify it but I wouldn't take the chance. A quick google and it seems on linux, you can do a "sha256sum (insert name of file)".

 

[nmt1900]

I would start to suspect some hardware issues (RAM or HD) with the computer you are using to download the build, if checksums for "known good" file are coming out wrong all the time. Network issues cannot be ruled out either of course...

P.S. I remember clearly downloading this build and flashing it on N16, when it came out. There was no problems back then...

Just now... I tried to test the same thing as OP did.

$ unzip -t RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.zip
Archive: RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.zip
testing: RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.trx OK
testing: README-merlin.txt OK
testing: sha256sum.txt OK
No errors detected in compressed data of RT-N16_3.0.0.4_378.50_0.zip.