Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
With the 6.1.36 release should the following sticky post have the sticky removed?
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=90853
It may be worth adding a new sticky post on the 6.1.36 and Hyper-V so that users can see that it now works (if they look, which does not always happen). I have installed it, but have not rebooted as I have Hyper-V disabled at the moment as I am doing some dev that needs it disabled.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=90853
It may be worth adding a new sticky post on the 6.1.36 and Hyper-V so that users can see that it now works (if they look, which does not always happen). I have installed it, but have not rebooted as I have Hyper-V disabled at the moment as I am doing some dev that needs it disabled.
-
- Volunteer
- Posts: 825
- Joined: 14. Sep 2019, 16:51
- Primary OS: Mac OS X other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: WIN11,10, 7, Linux (various)
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Installation of Extension Pack on macOS (Big Sur) failed with following message:
Reverted to VirtualBox 6.1.34 (and matching Extension Pack) and working again.
Bugtracker Ticket: https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/21024Failed to install the Extension Pack /Users/[username]/Downloads/Software Updates/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack-6.1.36.vbox-extpack.
Failed to load the main module ('/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib'): VERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND - dlopen(/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib, 6): no suitable image found. Did find:
/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib: code signature invalid for '/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib'
Result Code: NS_ERROR_FAILURE (0x80004005)
Component: ExtPackManagerWrap
Interface: IExtPackManager {70401eef-c8e9-466b-9660-45cb3e9979e4}
Reverted to VirtualBox 6.1.34 (and matching Extension Pack) and working again.
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Thank you for pointing out. This issue should now be fixed with https://download.virtualbox.org/virtual ... ox-extpack (link on Downloads page is now also updated).multiOS wrote:Installation of Extension Pack on macOS (Big Sur) failed with following message:
Bugtracker Ticket: https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/21024Failed to install the Extension Pack /Users/[username]/Downloads/Software Updates/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack-6.1.36.vbox-extpack.
Failed to load the main module ('/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib'): VERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND - dlopen(/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib, 6): no suitable image found. Did find:
/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib: code signature invalid for '/Applications/VirtualBox.app/Contents/MacOS/ExtensionPacks/Oracle_VM_VirtualBox_Extension_Pack/darwin.amd64/VBoxPuelMain.dylib'
Result Code: NS_ERROR_FAILURE (0x80004005)
Component: ExtPackManagerWrap
Interface: IExtPackManager {70401eef-c8e9-466b-9660-45cb3e9979e4}
Reverted to VirtualBox 6.1.34 (and matching Extension Pack) and working again.
-
- Volunteer
- Posts: 825
- Joined: 14. Sep 2019, 16:51
- Primary OS: Mac OS X other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: WIN11,10, 7, Linux (various)
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
@galitsyn
Thanks for the speedy response. i can confirm that installation is now back in good order.
Will note the Bugtracker ticket
Thanks for the speedy response. i can confirm that installation is now back in good order.
Will note the Bugtracker ticket
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 7. Jan 2010, 23:54
- Primary OS: MS Windows 10
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Windows 7
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Just noticed that installing Guest Additions 6.1.36 on Windows XP takes a long time (4-5 minutes).
The culprit seems to be a "VBoxCertUtil display" command that outputs a long list of certificates in the installer.
After that it finishes without other issues.
The culprit seems to be a "VBoxCertUtil display" command that outputs a long list of certificates in the installer.
After that it finishes without other issues.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 20945
- Joined: 30. Dec 2009, 20:14
- Primary OS: MS Windows 10
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Windows, Linux
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Try unplugging the VM's network "cable". This has been happening rather a while. We suspect it's a phone-home in the XP OS that has to time out.tonny wrote: installing Guest Additions 6.1.36 on Windows XP takes a long time (4-5 minutes).
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 7. Jan 2010, 23:54
- Primary OS: MS Windows 10
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Windows 7
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
By chance the network on this VM is already disconnected.
I tried manually logging the output of "VBoxCertUtil display-all" to a file and it only takes a few seconds but it generates about 2MB of text.
When the installer is running this command it is also drawing the text output on screen, and I think it's the drawing that is actually taking a long time (I've attached a screenshot of what it shows).
I double checked this by running with the installer minimized and in this case it runs much faster since Windows ignores drawing for apps that are not visible.
I've never noticed this behaviour in previous additions versions so that's why I wrote about it.
I tried manually logging the output of "VBoxCertUtil display-all" to a file and it only takes a few seconds but it generates about 2MB of text.
When the installer is running this command it is also drawing the text output on screen, and I think it's the drawing that is actually taking a long time (I've attached a screenshot of what it shows).
I double checked this by running with the installer minimized and in this case it runs much faster since Windows ignores drawing for apps that are not visible.
I've never noticed this behaviour in previous additions versions so that's why I wrote about it.
- Attachments
-
- VBoxAdditions.png (52.99 KiB) Viewed 8352 times
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
The integrity of Windows binary cannot be verified by SHA1 digital signature.
It can be verified by SHA256 digital signature though.
Is this a concern?
It can be verified by SHA256 digital signature though.
Is this a concern?
- Attachments
-
- sig.png (45.44 KiB) Viewed 7988 times
-
- Volunteer
- Posts: 5677
- Joined: 14. Feb 2019, 03:06
- Primary OS: Mac OS X other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Linux, Windows 10, ...
- Location: Germany
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Today's Windows versions only accept SHA-256 digital signatures, while some older Windows versions only accept SHA-1 digital signatures. To have only one VirtualBox installation package for all (supported and unsupported) Windows versions, ...robpats wrote:The integrity of Windows binary cannot be verified by SHA1 digital signature.
It can be verified by SHA256 digital signature though.
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
To be more specific, I noticed that the time of signing by SHA1 digital signature is in 2014.
I have checked the binary on Windows 7 and XP.
Its integrity cannot be verified on Windows 7 and XP as well.
Same error messages are shown.
VirtualBox 6.1.34 Windows binary is only signed by SHA256 digital signature.
I wonder if this is the intended way of signing for compatibility or there are some bugs in the signing procedures.
I have checked the binary on Windows 7 and XP.
Its integrity cannot be verified on Windows 7 and XP as well.
Same error messages are shown.
VirtualBox 6.1.34 Windows binary is only signed by SHA256 digital signature.
I wonder if this is the intended way of signing for compatibility or there are some bugs in the signing procedures.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 20945
- Joined: 30. Dec 2009, 20:14
- Primary OS: MS Windows 10
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Windows, Linux
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
I can't speak to the devs' intentions on signing certificates, or to what they're actually able to do nowadays with what certificates they can get.robpats wrote:I wonder if this is the intended way of signing for compatibility or there are some bugs in the signing procedures.
Windows 7 is no longer a supported host OS with 6.1, so I'd bet the devs would no longer consider it a requirement to get 6.1's executables to have a Windows 7-compatible certificate.
However, Windows 7 can apply Server 2008 r2's Microsoft update to get SHA256 signature capability, see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=103731&p=505523#p505520
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/top ... a4cde8e64f
I have a vague recollection that Vista might be able to get the same signing capability, if the Server 2008 r1 update exists.
XP has the "Continue anyway?" button to allow unsigned executables, so one could simply "continue anyway" when the lack of signature is pointed out. I don't remember any attempt by MS or others to give XP SHA256 capability.
VB 6.1.36
I upgraded my version of VB from 6.1.34 to 6.1.36 this morning and now I cannot start one of the VMs. I am getting the message that the start was abored. I did try to look at the logs but being non technical I didn't fine much in there. There are three VMs on the machine - the WinXP and Kubunbu VMs start fine. It is the Fedora 35 Server VM that will not start. Not sure what I should be looking for.
Re: VB 6.1.36
It would appear to be a VB problem as I restored an earlier working version of the VM, and its the same thing- after the grub menu it aborts.
Re: Discuss the VirtualBox 6.1.36 release here.
Should it help - here is a log from the aborted machine.
Update - I just tried to boot the Fedora Server 35 ISO and it also aborts - it does the countdown for the boot and then aborts!
[
Update - I just tried to boot the Fedora Server 35 ISO and it also aborts - it does the countdown for the boot and then aborts!
[
- Attachments
-
- FedoraLog202207-23.txt
- Log from aborted Fedora 35 Server VM
- (84.25 KiB) Downloaded 21 times