ArcherC8 wrote

@Coach-D 

 

If you are in the US are you going to https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/download/archer-a7/#Firmware

 

I took one of them (Archer A7(US)_V5_201029) and clicked on it and downloaded it to my Apple iMac. I got a zip file and when I clicked on it it created a folder. I opened the folder and got three files. A .bin and two .pdf files.

 

The .bin file was prefixed a7v5_us-up-ver1-0-16-P1....

 

@ArcherC8 

 

Yep, same.  Identical in every way.

 

Mine says the size of that .bin file is 15113 KB; compressed is 15085 KB.

 

What about yours?  If very different from this, we might be getting somewhere.  (Possibility 2.)

@IrvSp 

 

@Coach-D 

 

Well, that is the correct latest one.

 

I was curious so I looked with a binary browser at the f/w d/l for my A20 and the A7. Quite different.

 

A20, 2 locations and the same for the A7.

 

A20 Header:

 

 

Same data for the A7:

 

 

The 'header' seems longer in the A7?

 

Now down to the data (I think it is at least, after all the 'FFFF's.

 

A20:

 

 

Note it starts with 'support-list' and Archer A20 is in the data.

 

Now the A7:

 

 

No 'support list', partially spelled. No list of routers supported?

 

Could the build have been bad?

 

@Tony, is the A7 D/L correct?

a7v5_us-up-ver1-0-16-P1[20201029-rel43238].bin is 15.5 MB on my iMac and the zip was 15.9 MB.

The FFFFFs are considered as High-values in HEX. The data between the hex FFFFs could be just uninitialized data fields. Seen it many times in computer data dumps.

@ArcherC8 

 

Yes, I knew that. Depends how the file was initialized and the buffer allocated and where. Some are 0's as well sometimes.

 

Still, the 4KB block where the actual data starts are completely different. That is what I was trying to highlight. Compare the 2 captures at that location.

 

If you Google  A7 invalid file you WILL find many reports of that. Most are on 3rd party f/w going, or trying to, back to stock f/w.

 

Of course, some routers will not allow you to reload the present or older f/w. Hence why I suggested a RESET of the router, that could work then possibly?

 

 

 

IrvSp wrote

@Coach-D 

 

Well, that is the correct latest one.

 

I was curious so I looked with a binary browser at the f/w d/l for my A20 and the A7. Quite different.

 

A20, 2 locations and the same for the A7.

 

A20 Header:

 

 

Same data for the A7:

 

 

The 'header' seems longer in the A7?

 

Now down to the data (I think it is at least, after all the 'FFFF's.

 

A20:

 

 

Note it starts with 'support-list' and Archer A20 is in the data.

 

Now the A7:

 

 

No 'support list', partially spelled. No list of routers supported?

 

Could the build have been bad?

 

@Tony, is the A7 D/L correct?

@IrvSp 

 

The firmware provided was what was suggested for users to get the feature back. I went back to our team and informed them of the inability to downgrade with the suggested firmware, and was told a special request was going to be made about updating the link to resolve any downgrading issues. So far there is no time frame, but if that becomes available I'll be sure to provide that here.

@Tony 

 

Thanks for looking into this.

 

Tony wrote

 The firmware provided was what was suggested for users to get the feature back. I went back to our team and informed them of the inability to downgrade with the suggested firmware, and was told a special request was going to be made about updating the link to resolve any downgrading issues. So far there is no time frame, but if that becomes available I'll be sure to provide that here.

@Tony ,

 

Thank you.

 

Do you work for tp-link?

 

Anyway, does this mean that the level of update being downgraded to won't work only for people trying to go backwards?  Or is the build itself bad?

 

Presumably the level I'm attempting to go back to is the same that some users might be trying to advance UP to.  Will such forward upgrades meet the same invalid file type error?

 

Regarding "updating the link," does this mean there's a bad or incorrect file at the link, or that the link must simply be changed to point to the right place?

@Coach-D 

 

As I read 'between the lines' in @Tony's reply, it seems the F/W is doing the blocking? Either the old one will not install over a newer version or the even the newest version will not allow you to install ANY version other than a newer one.

 

I suspect the former, you can not install and older version and it always checks to see if it is newer, and they s/w continues to this day for that router. Probably always checked for newer than the installed one. If so, even that is a shame, and many times to clear any corruption of the f/w, one must re-install the same f/w?

 

I'll leave it for Tony to clear it up (yes, he does work for TP-Link and is a Moderator here) though.