Folding@home Portable 7.6.9 (distributed computing project) Released

John T. Haller's picture
Submitted by John T. Haller on April 18, 2020 - 7:26pm

A new version of Folding@home Portable has been released. Folding@home is a distributed computing project for simulating protein dynamics, including the process of protein folding and the movements of proteins implicated in a variety of diseases. It's packaged as a portable app, so you can use it on the go or on a PC without admin rights and it's in Format so it can easily integrate with the Platform. It's freeware for personal and business use.

Folding@home is packaged with preliminary permission from The Folding@home Consortium.

Update automatically or install from the portable app store in the Platform.


screenshotFolding@home (FAH or F@h) is a distributed computing project for simulating protein dynamics, including the process of protein folding and the movements of proteins implicated in a variety of diseases. It brings together citizen scientists who volunteer to run simulations of protein dynamics on their personal computers. Insights from this data are helping scientists to better understand biology, and providing new opportunities for developing therapeutics.

Learn more about Folding@home... Installer / Format

Folding@home Portable is packaged in a Installer so it will automatically detect an existing installation when your drive is plugged in. It supports upgrades by installing right over an existing copy, preserving all settings. And it's in Format, so it automatically works with the Platform including the Menu and Backup Utility.


Folding@home Portable is available for immediate download from the Folding@home Portable homepage. Get it today!

Story Topic:


At start distributive fah-installer_7.6.9_x86.exe, operation system ask, really must run application of unknown PUBLISHER (yellow head of window).
At start previous version fah-installer_7.5.1_x86.exe, OS ask about application from Stanford UNIVERSITY (blue head of window).
Checking for coronavirus and other viruses is not correct sometimes.
The hands and heads of autors are incorrect, not my sentence.

John T. Haller's picture

That's because it only has an SHA1 hash and not an SHA256 hash as well. Just a misconfiguration of the command line parameters sent to signtool.exe. That's what determines whether the publisher appears in the window. The signature and the publisher are on the EXE either way as you can confirm by selecting the File Properties and then the Security tab.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

See and «Digital signs» tab is shown, not «security» tab, sorry.
And why the behavior of the operation system is different at start this two programs? Tell about «the publisher» to the authors of the MS Windows. As to me, I can not trust this program.

Citation from :
«This tool is automatically installed with Visual Studio.»
Sorry, how do I get such luxury? I am Russian unemployed, I have not sufficiently money for it. I only have a free VSCode. And «signtool.exe» is unknown at my computer at all. That is error message (two lines) from Cmd.exe:
«"signtool.exe" не является внутренней или внешней
командой, исполняемой программой или пакетным файлом.»

John T. Haller's picture

Sorry, I meant the Digital Signatures tab. I wasn't at my computer. And I meant that the publisher fed the wrong command line into signtool.exe to sign the file, so it was signed with an SHA1 instead of an SHA256. It's signed with the publisher set either way, but Windows won't show it in the case of an SHA1 these days because it is considered an insecure hashing schema. So, it's the real file, from the real publisher, they just made a mistake when they digitally signed it with signtool. I know because I had some issues getting it working correctly with dual SHA1 and SHA256 signatures for compatibility with Windows XP/Vista (SHA1) and modern Windows.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

I also meant that autor (i.e. publisher) made error (wrong command line or another). And I am sure there are much more mistakes.
I do not know modern program development tools. I can not explore this problem by myself.
I can view only part of situation: every file has the same SHA1-sign, but one file made by known publisher while second file made by unknown publisher.
Because I can not understand details of this error, I afraid to use this program. And I think that publisher is pseudo-scientist, not scientist. In the XXI century – the ancient SHA1-hash and the 32-bit program.

Sorry my English again. It is a shame to me.