Password Protect a compressed zip file in Windows Vista

How does one password protect a compressed zip file in Windows Vista?
This was an option in Windows XP, but now it seems to be missing from
Windows Vista options......

Vista no longer password protects its zip files (it will unzip a password
protected zip however).

Michael


"Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote in
message news:CB5A489C-46FF-4FDD-A786-...
> How does one password protect a compressed zip file in Windows Vista?
> This was an option in Windows XP, but now it seems to be missing from
> Windows Vista options......

How is an administrator supposed to submit virus samples to Virus Protection
companies without having to use third party software then?

"Michael" wrote:

> Vista no longer password protects its zip files (it will unzip a password
> protected zip however).
>
> Michael
>
>
> "Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote in
> message news:CB5A489C-46FF-4FDD-A786-...
> > How does one password protect a compressed zip file in Windows Vista?
> > This was an option in Windows XP, but now it seems to be missing from
> > Windows Vista options......
>
>

Please see this article.

http://vil.nai.com/vil/submit-sample.aspx

One should not have to purchase third party software on a new OS when it was
included in the predecessor.




"Michael" wrote:

> Vista no longer password protects its zip files (it will unzip a password
> protected zip however).
>
> Michael
>
>
> "Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote in
> message news:CB5A489C-46FF-4FDD-A786-...
> > How does one password protect a compressed zip file in Windows Vista?
> > This was an option in Windows XP, but now it seems to be missing from
> > Windows Vista options......
>
>

"Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote ...
> How is an administrator supposed to submit virus samples to Virus
> Protection
> companies without having to use third party software then?

This is somewhat apochryphal, but ... I believe the reason the password
protection feature was withdrwn in Vista was that the quality of the
password security was actually pretty poor. I don't remember which algorithm
it used, but it was easily hacked. It did not meet the security standards
Microsoft required for Vista. So, it was judged better to have no password
at all, than to create an erroneous illusion of security, by providing weak
password protection. There were some complications about adding a strong
password facility to the zip compression - I am not sure what they were,
but possibly revolving around the fact Microsoft licenses the Zip code from
a 3rd party. But that's just a guess.

Maybe it was a good decison, maybe bad. But there was a rationale behind it;
it wasn't just a "screw the customers" moment.

There are several inexpensive 3rd party apps to create password-protected
Zip files.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

One doesn't. A decision was made to remove that feature, so the only option
you have is to use a third party program to fulfill that requirement. I
don't disagree that it's inconvenient, but that's the only answer that there
is.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote in
message news:1D158FE5-7A7B-4B05-A4BF-...
> How is an administrator supposed to submit virus samples to Virus
> Protection
> companies without having to use third party software then?
>
> "Michael" wrote:
>
>> Vista no longer password protects its zip files (it will unzip a password
>> protected zip however).
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> "Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote in
>> message news:CB5A489C-46FF-4FDD-A786-...
>> > How does one password protect a compressed zip file in Windows Vista?
>> > This was an option in Windows XP, but now it seems to be missing from
>> > Windows Vista options......
>>
>>

RE: "it wasn't just a "screw the customers" moment"

MS needs to focus not on intention, but on results and impact.

Example: McAfee requires a password protected zip file if writing about a
potential virus. I needed to send them a file. BUT, what seemed simple has
now turned into a 1/2 hour production.

One more example of Vista hindering doing what used to be quick and simple,
and requiring one to spend time searching for solutions and alternatives and
work arounds.

Why even include a zip compression program if it can't do the basics?

I don't question your intent. But I do wish that MS developers would gain
more understanding about users — and the time required to do what used to be
so easy.

"Andrew McLaren" wrote:

> "Gabriel Simmons" <> wrote ...
> > How is an administrator supposed to submit virus samples to Virus
> > Protection
> > companies without having to use third party software then?
>
> This is somewhat apochryphal, but ... I believe the reason the password
> protection feature was withdrwn in Vista was that the quality of the
> password security was actually pretty poor. I don't remember which algorithm
> it used, but it was easily hacked. It did not meet the security standards
> Microsoft required for Vista. So, it was judged better to have no password
> at all, than to create an erroneous illusion of security, by providing weak
> password protection. There were some complications about adding a strong
> password facility to the zip compression - I am not sure what they were,
> but possibly revolving around the fact Microsoft licenses the Zip code from
> a 3rd party. But that's just a guess.
>
> Maybe it was a good decison, maybe bad. But there was a rationale behind it;
> it wasn't just a "screw the customers" moment.
>
> There are several inexpensive 3rd party apps to create password-protected
> Zip files.
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>

"Aaron" <> wrote ...
> I don't question your intent.

Well, when you say "your" ... do you mean *me*? Hey, it wasn't my idea. I'm
not a Microsoft employee, or contractor, and they never asked my opinion.

I'm just a simple MVP, relaying info I heard at a few briefings and stuff.

> But I do wish that MS developers would gain
> more understanding about users - and the time required to do what used to
> be
> so easy.

I agree with you about this, 120%!

--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

Andrew,

Sorry for seeming to imply that your = you.

I was confused, since it sounded like you were supportive of their decision
when you said: "But there was a rationale behind it; it wasn't just a 'screw
the customers"' moment.

They may not intend to, but all too often, they do screw the customers.
Their not realizing it is what's so disturbing.

It occurs to me now that beta testing may have some flaws. The testers
probably are not a valid sample of most users. People who test may skew
toward those who are tech savvy and have access to power machines. If so, my
theory is that MS tests + beta tests do not reflect the real world.

I was just having another Vista moment. I've traveled with MS from DOS
through each operating system. I find Vista to be the most major "screw the
customer" system. Because they assume that we all have all the hours needed
to unlearn old habits, learn new ones, maneuver through the worst Help system
yet, find out that basic functions are no longer available. and so on.

Anyway, I know that you are you, not them!

Aaron

"Andrew McLaren" wrote:

> "Aaron" <> wrote ...
> > I don't question your intent.
>
> Well, when you say "your" ... do you mean *me*? Hey, it wasn't my idea. I'm
> not a Microsoft employee, or contractor, and they never asked my opinion.
>
> I'm just a simple MVP, relaying info I heard at a few briefings and stuff.
>
> > But I do wish that MS developers would gain
> > more understanding about users - and the time required to do what used to
> > be
> > so easy.
>
> I agree with you about this, 120%!
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>

Cool! :-) Thanks Aaron; sounds like we're in broad agreement. I know
Microsoft did extensive user testing during Vista development - but then,
there are the moments when I want to hurl Vista out the freakin' window
(sic), in anger and frustration. So all that usability testing seems to have
skipped over some issues ...

Cheers
Andrew