So...

Is the WZOR build 7600.16385 that was leaked way back and compiled into a .ISO from MS files the real deal? And can I really be 100% sure that it doesn't viruses, spyware or anything of the sort? I don't feel like reinstalling 7 again with the new ISOs...

Thanks!

If you are concerned over the ISO you downloaded, there is a handy tool available here that will check your ISO file against known official hashes and tell you if it has been changed.

Stranger said:

If you are concerned over the ISO you downloaded, there is a handy tool available here that will check your ISO file against known official hashes and tell you if it has been changed.

It won't match official hashes as the ISO was made by WZT from MS files, so the only way to be 100% sure is to download an official ISO and compare the files on both.

YupYup said:

It won't match official hashes as the ISO was made by WZT from MS files, so the only way to be 100% sure is to download an official ISO and compare the files on both.

The WZT hash check is indeed different from the official ISO, however the Windows 7 ISO Veriifier tool mentioned above can hash check and verify the WZT releases too.

Fritz Fraghof said:

The WZT hash check is indeed different from the official ISO, however the Windows 7 ISO Veriifier tool mentioned above can hash check and verify the WZT releases too.

It can verify the hash matches what WZT provided not that the files are untouched from the oficial ISO. So you can either trust WZT or as i said compare the files of both to be 100% sure.

YupYup said:

It won't match official hashes as the ISO was made by WZT from MS files, so the only way to be 100% sure is to download an official ISO and compare the files on both.

Exactly, as it was made by WZT from MS files, how can anyone be certain that it is indeed pure? Personally when it comes to my OS I would much rather trust a download I got directly from Microsoft over that compiled by a Russian pirate.

WZOR had 2 'releases':

The Earlier release was made from 'MS folders and files' and did not contain the
file: \source\ei.cfg, therefore was called "Touched" and deemed "dirty".
WZOR also used his toolset to create a "bootable" iso, since only 'MS folders and files' were available.
Many feared to DL this early release because of those quoted words...
The hash he provided with this Early release was meant to check and verify the DL of the 'Early release' ONLY.
Obviously, with the missing file and his CD_Bootsector, the given 'Early' hashes would never match the Technet official DL hashes.

At this time, all eyes were on the Zukona release, declared "official MS".
Others later verified that Zukona's versions are the same as the Technet DL, matching hashes, etc.

WZOR then had a Later release, also declared "official MS".
WZOR gave hashes for this Later release. The hashes were the same as Zuko (which turned out to be the same as the Technet DL).
WZOR - Zukona file comparisons here also indicated 'Identical'.

Prior to the Technet being publicly available, I compared the 'Early WZR' to the Zukona and, except for the one missing file ei.cfg, all other files were Identical, even though the hashes were different.
(Didn't bother with the CD_Bootsectors though.)

So, the Early WZR release was 'Touched' and 'dirty' in a really good way,
because it allowed any installation of your choosing. (Thanks, Wzor.)

I think I got this straight now...

Stranger said:

...how can anyone be certain that it is indeed pure?

Check it out yourself, and investigate the differences...

Personally when it comes to my OS I would much rather trust a download I got directly from Microsoft over that compiled by a Russian pirate.

Me too, if the MS DL were available to me, but I wouldn't be so harsh on our foreign friends...