FirstLoveMovies

Correction:

that you are perfectly willing to USE commercial software.

(Gee, I was trying to be discreet!)

JDOWNLOADER NOW UNINSTALLED!!!!

Windows Defender identified it as a Potential Threat. Cool.

In another thread recently, Ziggy Plock shared this warning:

Ziggy Plock wrote:According to VirusTotal com, all 17 versions of TV downloader have viruses:
...[items deleted] ...
TVDownloader-1.19c.zip Cylance Unsafe / Jiangmin TrojanSpy.MSIL.net / Fortinet-W32/PossibleThreat / McAfee-GenericRXQV-QJ!337C1A3D34F9 / McAfee-GW-Edition-GenericRXQV-QJ!337C1A3D34F9

Only 5 out of 60 security vendors identified TVDownloader as a threat, so I thought perhaps it was a false positive. I stopped using paid protection long ago, but I do remember some of them routinely got hysterical over nothing. Still, I decided to investigate. Some commenting in videohelp dot com forums identified it as adware that would insert banners and the like into browsers. I have multiple adblockers so I had not noticed any problem, but I figured a Windows Defender Full Scan was a reasonable thing to do. I had not done one in while.

Defender completely ignored TVDownloader but identified JDownloader as potentially malicious.

Windows Defender wrote:Category: Potentially Unwanted Software

Description: This program displays deceptive product messages.

Recommended action: Remove this software immediately.

Microsoft online wrote:Misleading:Win32/Lodi
...
This program makes misleading or fraudulent claims about the files, registry entries, or other items on your PC.

I am used to being lied to all the time on television and the internet, so "misleading" statements do not make me panic. But there is no point running a Defender scan if I am just going to ignore the results. I can do nothing and take much less time to do it, so why did I bother? I let Defender delete the .exe and then I uninstalled the software entirely.

I will admit right here that if I want a video badly enough and can not get it any other way, I am very likely to end up re-installing it!

I uninstalled TVDownloader also, for good measure. I should be able to do anything that program does with command-line youtube-dl, as much fun as THAT is.

Then I started exploring more of my software files on VirusTotal.

Only 1 of 93 vendors identified the Jdownloader download URL as malicious:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/7c98 ... ?nocache=1

I downloaded the installation .exe but did not install it, and within a few minutes Defender had identified it as malicious and quarantined it. So I let it delete it.

I used a free checksum generator to hash some of my .exe files.

youtube-dl-gui.exe was flagged by 1 of 66 vendors:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/34a ... f72f2ad878

youtube-dl.exe came up perfectly clean!!! Yay!! Command-line it is, then.
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/78c ... d85c3c0628

Then for fun I used my free checksum generator to hash itself and checked that. 3 of 70 found winmd5free.exe to be malicious!!! Seriously??
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/477 ... c8935d7445

It may very well be that none of these are particularly "dangerous" and it is certainly an inconvenience to not have them available for use. Searching out alternate options and checking THEIR relative safety will also be time-consuming, but not NEARLY as time-consuming as the HOURS of research it would take (for each piece of software!) for me to become educated and reasonably capable of evaluating relative threat levels to decide something is "safe enough anyway." I am no security expert and am not interested in becoming one.

THANK YOU to Ziggy Plock for giving me fair warning! If I choose to take risks anyway, the blame is mine alone.

Potentially Unwanted Software isn't a virus. JDownloader is too important to me and I never got any virus warning. So I'll keep it anway.

I completely understand all your points! Calling something "unwanted" or "unsafe" or "possible threat" is rather vague, to say the least. Internet security vendors are dedicated to stopping people from doing ANYTHING online. And even if it WAS a virus, there are plenty of people perfectly willing to live with a virus in real life, so why not on their computer, too? They can deal with symptoms and harm on a case-by-case basis, and computer harm is not fatal to the person. They can look at computer viruses like herpes: better not to get it in the first place, but you are stuck with it once you have it. And if you had fun getting it, there is no point in stopping having fun if all your friends like that kind of fun too!

If I ever get a second computer, I will let one be "All cooties all the time" and the other be "Mr. Clean" and automatically sandbox and scan files transferred to the clean one.

Malware is usually included in installer exe, not in the application itself, which is open source. youtube-dl is actually a Python script, so just install Python interpreter (which is included in Linux anyway) and run the script. Exe file is for those who don't have Python, so it includes the Python interpreter and god knows what else.

Similarly, jdownloader is an open source Java program. IIRC, the installer had a checkbox "install viruses" or something, which had to be cleared.

Night457 wrote:JDOWNLOADER NOW UNINSTALLED!!!!

i really do think it is probably best.

Night457 wrote:Only 5 out of 60 security vendors identified TVDownloader as a threat, so I thought perhaps it was a false positive.

Dude, 5 of 60 is A LOT!!!! I think a lot of those 60 don't really update all that often, so, them not reacting is a not a clean bill of health. My cut-off is two, IF i really need it. I don't really need TVdownloader, so it's a no-no.

but I do remember some of them routinely got hysterical over nothing.

Oh? How would you KNOW that for a fact?

But there is no point running a Defender scan if I am just going to ignore the results.

This .... is very true

I will admit right here that if I want a video badly enough and can not get it any other way, I am very likely to end up re-installing it!

Why not use some Live CD, WinPE 10 or something on your back up laptop? Or, learn how to do VHD stuff??

I should be able to do anything that program does with command-line youtube-dl, as much fun as THAT is.

If you have a link to How To on command-line youtube-dl lying around, can you please post it? Thanks.

youtube-dl-gui.exe was flagged by 1 of 66 vendors:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/34a ... f72f2ad878

3 of 70 found winmd5free.exe to be malicious!!! Seriously? https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/477 ... c8935d7445

What's ALSO suspicious that winmd5Free is that it has 141 positive community scores, which seems waaay too much to my liking. 30-40 ? Sure. But 141? Someone seems to use a bot to generate likes....

THANK YOU to Ziggy Plock for giving me fair warning! If I choose to take risks anyway, the blame is mine alone.

You're welcome and maybe we should sandbox these programs more regularly. But then again, who is THAT disciplined?

Oh mimzy, how easily you post way over my head, where my knowledge does not reach! Well, maybe I can learnify some.

mimzy wrote:Malware is usually included in installer exe, not in the application itself, which is open source.

So if I install some software and then delete the original installation file I am safe?

I am being deliberately stupid here, of course. Clearly I need to look for something else installed along with the application itself. But if I were a clever bad operator I would want my malware working in tandem with some software an unsuspicious victim will use frequently, rather than something standalone that shows up in Task Manager in plain view. When I am downloading movies with JDownloader, is it also secretly downloading other stuff? When I am sharing files in qBittorrent, is it also a sharer in a botnet? When I look at my Upload and Download internet usage speeds, it is always much more than what is being used by eMule, for example. Those additional kilobytes are being used by something. Whenever I looked into botnet-detector sites online, they verify that I am NOT part of a botnet that has already been identified and taken down. Well that is bloody useless! It is the botnets that have NOT been taken down that are the problem.

Or, do you mean that open source software is fundamentally safe? My definitions say that "Open source software is software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance." Well, the vast majority of software users can not read code so this does not protect them. The software designer can put a comment in the code saying "This part will do really bad stuff to your computer!" but I will never see it, because I assume the code will be meaningless to me anyway. I have to rely on others to declare something "safe." This means folks like Defender and security vendors. They can be overly cautious or wrong, but they do know more than I do regardless.

youtube-dl is actually a Python script, so just install Python interpreter (which is included in Linux anyway) and run the script.

(I remember using Linux for a short time!)

But then I have to download and verify both the script AND Python as "safe," right? If the command-line .exe already seems to be "safe," I don't see the advantage of an additional download. I almost never use command line because I love my GUIs, but I suppose Python runs other scripts I might find useful.

IIRC, the installer had a checkbox "install viruses" or something, which had to be cleared.

You are really, really funny! I have always carefully observed my installations specifically to avoid stuff like that, but it is possible I missed it the last time. The problem is now when Windows Defender identifies the JDownloader installer itself as a problem. If all they mean is that the installer gives options to install other stuff too, then I have to say to them "Well DUH, that describes pretty much every single software package I have ever encountered!" The vendors always think they are helping us out by providing their other products and those of their partners.

Ziggy Plock wrote:Dude, 5 of 60 is A LOT!!!!

5 out of 60 people are flat-Earthers! I am willing to consider a minority opinion but I see consensus as important in any evaluation. 55 out of 60 is a LOT of people who do NOT find it a problem.

I don't really need TVdownloader, so it's a no-no.

I find TVD very useful for getting subtitles when other downloaders only get the video, that is why I would prefer to keep it. However, if youtube-dl (which is used secretly by many many downloaders) will get me the subtitles all by itself, I will use that instead.

Oh? How would you KNOW that for a fact?

I evaluate warnings from security vendors just like I do everything else in life: if I they are panicking over something that has never caused problems for me, then I consider them full of sh!t. I remember TrendMicro as being utterly worthless with its false positives. If I was out on a pond in a rowboat, they would tell me to beware of crashing airplanes.

In this case, I HAVE had problems lately with downloading files using certain software, and occasional strange unexplained interruptions to my computer usage. I do so much online simultaneously that it is hard to pin down the exact cause of any issues, but it DOES make me open to warnings that a particular piece of software is a known malfactor. If I uninstall it and my problems go away, then I consider the warnings correct. Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Why not use some Live CD, WinPE 10 or something on your back up laptop? Or, learn how to do VHD stuff??

Since I do not have any backup (yet) and I am not familiar with using any of those, I guess I can't really answer you. But don't all of those simply provide a way of sharing files without verifying that they are safe to share?

If you have a link to How To on command-line youtube-dl lying around, can you please post it? Thanks.

I wish I did. The few times I used it, I would Google specifically what I wanted to accomplish and follow the format exactly. The next time I used it I would have forgotten that and likely need to do something else. Normally I bookmark such sites, but I don't seem to have for this.

If I find a good general source of information I will post it here.

What's ALSO suspicious that winmd5Free is that it has 141 positive community scores, which seems waaay too much to my liking. 30-40 ? Sure. But 141? Someone seems to use a bot to generate likes....

Maybe it has more positive scores because it has been around unchanged for so many years. The positive scores may in fact reflect that is has worked well for so many years, rather than the reverse.

In all my years of casual computer use I only needed to generate and compare MD5 hashes ONCE, and that was in the past 6 months. I have no problem getting rid of this one, which I only picked up for that one use and just happened to still have. Since Virustotal gave the option of searching by hash, I thought "Oh, I can do that."

You're welcome and maybe we should sandbox these programs more regularly. But then again, who is THAT disciplined?

I know that I certainly am not! Clearly you are more cautious than I am, and I certainly will not fault anyone who is. You know those Terms & Conditions that you have to agree to before you install software? Decades ago I USED TO READ THEM. No kidding. The pages and pages of iTunes Terms finally cured me of that, particularly since it had frequent updates and I WOULD READ THE CONDITIONS EVERY TIME! How can I agree to something if I don't know what it is? They make the terms ridiculously long so that no one would have time to do any computing if they actually read them, and therefore they automatically agree to giving up their first-born children so they can listen to MP3s. The South Park episode "HumancentiPad" deals with some of these issues.

Anyway ... since then I have used computers with the goal of doing what is fast and convenient, rather than what is legal, moral and safe. When I encounter a problem, then I take the time to do something different. I have (knock on wood!) never had my computer disabled by malware. I have never had to even reinstall Windows. Oh hell, I have just jinxed myself.

Night457 wrote:I am being deliberately stupid here, of course. Clearly I need to look for something else installed along with the application itself. But if I were a clever bad operator I would want my malware working in tandem with some software an unsuspicious victim will use frequently, rather than something standalone that shows up in Task Manager in plain view. When I am downloading movies with JDownloader, is it also secretly downloading other stuff? When I am sharing files in qBittorrent, is it also a sharer in a botnet?

Possibly, but these are things that even anti-virus programs cannot detect. Moreover, how do you know that anti-virus software itself is not spying after you? Maybe the fact that Kaspersky was related to KGB is not a coincidence...

Night457 wrote:When I look at my Upload and Download internet usage speeds, it is always much more than what is being used by eMule, for example. Those additional kilobytes are being used by something.

There is of course lots of control data that goes along with actual payload, so small overhead is nothing to worry about, but I am also myself using traffic analyzer from time to time, when I have suspicions.

Night457 wrote:Or, do you mean that open source software is fundamentally safe? My definitions say that "Open source software is software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance." Well, the vast majority of software users can not read code so this does not protect them. The software designer can put a comment in the code saying "This part will do really bad stuff to your computer!" but I will never see it, because I assume the code will be meaningless to me anyway.

Open-source software is usually developed by hundreds of people around the world and the code is public to everyone. All code changes are tracked. It is very difficult to deliberately sneak something malicious into the code so that no-one notices. Of course, there can be unintentional vulnebarities, which can be exploited. For example, a hacker can discover that by sending carefully constructed invalid data packets to your eMule client he can take control of your PC. But even such vulnebarities are usually discovered and fixed quickly in open-source code (that's why you should always upgrade to the latest version).

Night457 wrote:

youtube-dl is actually a Python script, so just install Python interpreter (which is included in Linux anyway) and run the script.

(I remember using Linux for a short time!)

But then I have to download and verify both the script AND Python as "safe," right? If the command-line .exe already seems to be "safe," I don't see the advantage of an additional download. I almost never use command line because I love my GUIs, but I suppose Python runs other scripts I might find useful.

Python is an open-source package and if you download it from official source, it can be trusted. Same generally applies to youtube-dl. I don't know how those exes are made.

Night457 wrote:

IIRC, the installer had a checkbox "install viruses" or something, which had to be cleared.

You are really, really funny!

Well, I was maybe exaggerating a bit, but I do remember reading about malware in jdownloader and the response of developers was something like "what's the problem, just clear that checkbox". That was several years ago, though.

Night457 wrote: youtube-dl.exe came up perfectly clean!!! Yay!! Command-line it is, then.
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/78c ... d85c3c0628

When I uploaded it, something odd happened: It had zero community score (see link below) while with your link above the community score is 102... Weird

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/26e ... ?nocache=1