[Info] Securom capitalization differs between DIC and Redumper #754

New Issue

Closed

opened 2026-01-29 16:21:43 +00:00 by claunia · 1 comment

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:21:43 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Originally created by @FoxhackDN on GitHub (Nov 2, 2024).

Originally assigned to: @mnadareski on GitHub.

Is your information related to one of the dumping programs supported or something that isn't a bug in the code? Please describe.
Using MPF 3.2.2, you get slighty different results in the submission info if you dump a disc with Securom v7:

DIC:
MSF: 00:01:74 Q-Data: 410100 00:40:01 00 00:03:74 2ef1

Redumper:
MSF: 00:01:74 Q-Data: 410100 00:40:01 00 00:03:74 2EF1

Additional context
There is no functional difference between the two results, but I don't know which one is preferred and Sabre told me to post this here so yeah.

Originally created by @FoxhackDN on GitHub (Nov 2, 2024). Originally assigned to: @mnadareski on GitHub. **Is your information related to one of the dumping programs supported or something that isn't a bug in the code? Please describe.** Using MPF 3.2.2, you get slighty different results in the submission info if you dump a disc with Securom v7: DIC: `MSF: 00:01:74 Q-Data: 410100 00:40:01 00 00:03:74 2ef1` Redumper: `MSF: 00:01:74 Q-Data: 410100 00:40:01 00 00:03:74 2EF1` **Additional context** There is no functional difference between the two results, but I don't know which one is *preferred* and Sabre told me to post this here so yeah.

claunia added the question label 2026-01-29 16:21:43 +00:00

claunia closed this issue 2026-01-29 16:21:44 +00:00

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:21:44 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy Link

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2024):

After talking about this with the other Redump moderators, we have decided that this does not need to be normalized. The values are effectively identical and are normalized on Redump's site. Since this is the primary use case for MPF, I will be closing this but leaving the issue here in case others happen to notice it as well.

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2024): After talking about this with the other Redump moderators, we have decided that this does not need to be normalized. The values are effectively identical and are normalized on Redump's site. Since this is the primary use case for MPF, I will be closing this but leaving the issue here in case others happen to notice it as well.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

master

rolling

3.6.0

3.5.0

3.4.2

3.4.1

3.4.0

3.3.3

3.3.2

3.3.1

3.3.0

3.2.4

3.2.3

3.2.2

3.2.1

3.2.0

3.1.9

3.1.8

3.1.7

3.1.6

3.1.5

3.1.4

3.1.3

3.1.2

check-rolling

ui-rolling

3.1.1

3.1.0

3.0.3

3.0.2

3.0.1

3.0.0

2.7.5

2.7.4

2.7.3

2.7.2

2.7.1

2.7.0

2.6.6

2.6.5

2.6.4

2.6.3

2.6.2

2.6.1

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.18

1.17.1

1.17

1.16.1

1.16

1.15

1.14

1.13

1.12.2

1.12.1

1.12

1.11

1.10

1.07

1.06

1.05.1

1.05

1.04b

1.04a

1.04

1.03

1.02b

1.02

1.01d

1.01c

1.01b

Labels

Clear labels

bug

duplicate

enhancement

good first issue

help wanted

invalid

pull-request

Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request

question

regression

wontfix

No Label question

Milestone

No items

No Milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

claunia

No Assignees

1 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SabreTools/MPF#754