"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6fednURuh-0BoxzVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com...
> tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:16:50 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>>>>> Don't know. I have replaced 4.1 with 4.2. Give it a try.
>>>> Be careful. All links from the Irfanview site that direct you to
>>>> iview42_setup.exe, (version 4.2) contain this virus
>>>>
>>>> http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/viru...AK_Generic.001
>>> A virus from Tucows, or Downloads.com? I seriously doubt this. Note
>>> that I don't use their other mirrors.
>>
>> Tucows and most of the other sites don't have version 4.2
>
> Funny, that's where the download I got came from....
I just now downloaded 4.2 from C|Net, scanned it with McAfee and found no
virus or any other malware. The file I downloaded is iview420_setup.exe.
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:38:40 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>tnom wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:14:28 -0400, me@mine.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:06:14 -0400, in rec.photo.digital tnom@mucks.net
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No. What it is saying is that this particular file is possibly
>>>>>infected because it has characteristics that are suspicious.
>>>>>It has yet to be determined by Trend Micro if it actually is a
>>>>>virus.
>>>>
>>>>Then bozo why did you EXPLICITLY state the following?
>>>>
>>>>>Be careful. All links from the Irfanview site that direct you to
>>>>>iview42_setup.exe, (version 4.2) contain this virus
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Because Trend Micro alerted me to a Virus and suggested to not
>>> download the file.
>>
>>"Possibly infected" (your second explanation) is not the same as "contain
>>the virus" (your first bit of FUD).
>
> Maybe because Trend Micro upon download of Irfanview 4.2 reports
> it AS A VIRUS which was reported in my first post. If you then follow
> the link and read what the virus information is then you get a more
> detailed explanation, which was my second post. My posts on this
> subject are accurate, but if that upsets you then go ahead and ignore
> the info.
I neither have to follow it nor ignore it, in so far as I have no need to
download and install IrfanView over my present copies of it. I just
hate to see FUD (and urban legends) vectored.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Ron Hunter wrote:
> tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>>> Don't know. I have replaced 4.1 with 4.2. Give it a try.
>>
>> Be careful. All links from the Irfanview site that direct you to
>> iview42_setup.exe, (version 4.2) contain this virus
>>
>>
>> http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/viru...AK_Generic.001
>
> A virus from Tucows, or Downloads.com? I seriously doubt this. Note
> that I don't use their other mirrors.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time actual malware had made its way
past the quality control folks of a major shareware distributor. Or
onto a popular shareware collection CD. Or for that matter, onto a
spanking new hard drive right from the manufacturer.
Sparky wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>>>> Don't know. I have replaced 4.1 with 4.2. Give it a try.
>>> Be careful. All links from the Irfanview site that direct you to
>>> iview42_setup.exe, (version 4.2) contain this virus
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/viru...AK_Generic.001
>> A virus from Tucows, or Downloads.com? I seriously doubt this. Note
>> that I don't use their other mirrors.
>
> It certainly wouldn't be the first time actual malware had made its way
> past the quality control folks...onto a
> spanking new hard drive...
>>>And your evidence for this is.............?
>>
>>A Virus scanner, 2008 Trend Micro
>
>
>Well it's wrong. Run your IV v4.20 setup through jotti
>and it comes up fine and that webservice includes Trend Micro.
tnom@mucks.net wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:09:00 +0100, hummingbird
> <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:39:20 -0400 'tnom@mucks.net'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>>> Don't know. I have replaced 4.1 with 4.2. Give it a try.
>>>
>>> Be careful. All links from the Irfanview site that direct you to
>>> iview42_setup.exe, (version 4.2) contain this virus
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/viru...AK_Generic.001
>>
>> And your evidence for this is.............?
>
> A Virus scanner, 2008 Trend Micro
>Can you reproduce this WinXP Irfanview v4.10 bug?
>
>1. Start with a large directory of JPEG files (at least a few hundred
>pictures, say about 400 or 500 from a normal photo shoot). These must have
>a few files that are not rotated yet, but which have the proper Exif tags.
>
>2. Select all 500 files with Irvanview "File->Thumbnails->Options->Select
>All" and then press "File->JPEG Lossless Operations->Lossless Rotation With
>Selected Files->Auto Rotate (according to Exif orientation, if
>available)->Optimize JPG File->Apply original Exif date/time to new
>file->Keep all APP markers (default)".
>
>3. Every time I do this, only the first hundred or two hundred pictures are
>rotated; the rest seem to not be touched. If I select a hundred pictures at
>a time (slow at best in the Irfanview thumbnail viewer), then, over
>successive operations, I can manage to auto-rotate the entire set.
>
>This looks/smells/tastes either like user error (but where?) or a
>previously unknown bug in Irfanview.
>
>Can another confirm that Irfanview batch lossless autorotation by Exif tags
>fails to run on all selected files for large numbers of files?
Susan,
Not what you want to hear, but it seems to work OK for me.
I couldn't find any not-yet-rotated ones so I took a couple of
portrait photos, checked that they were indeed being shown with the
'wrong' orientation, and added them to a collection of other old JPGs,
making 544 in total. About 963 MB in total.
IrfanView 4.10 performed the operation on all of them and the last two
were now correctly displayed.
Have you tried it with various alternative sets of JPGs? IOW, to see
if you can get the process to work with any of them? Which would then
perhaps implicate a file(s) in the set that's not working properly.
Given that my folder worked OK, maybe you could simply make up a
folder based on some of my files, just in case there's something weird
happening with your own! You could use one or two of them and quickly
double up repeatedly until you had 500+. If you want to try that let
me know and I'll make up a small ZIP file and upload it.
>Sorry, my bad. Whatever, there are ~22 scanners at jotti, and
>my installer passed them all. It is not good practice to make the
>kind of unsubstantiated assertion that you made which can easily
>spread across the Internet and have serious effects on the author
>of such a program. By your (later) admission the Trend flag was
>not a statement of fact, but a warning (almost certainly false).
Unsubstantiated?
Check this out............ 7rh28458c8jqva8actqlc81flo1qpio0ho@4ax.com
The file could not be downloaded to completion without turning the
virus scanner off. Now tell me how this isn't presented as a virus per
Trend Micro.
The second post was the picky details that you would only gain if you
went online to look up the particular virus.
>Given all that, where do *you* think the problem lies???
>
>Thus, my comments about being careful when slagging down
>a hugely popular FREEWARE program stand.
The fact remains...Upon downloading Trend Micro stops the download
and says "Computer Virus found". So who do you have a problem with?
If you have a problem with reporting this then maybe you should
re-examine your thinking. Shouldn't you have a problem with the
source (Trend Micro) rather than the person that reports the
exact notification from Trend Micro that says " Computer Virus Found".
Furthermore after someone posted that this was not a Virus I went
online and posted a summary of what Trend Micro specifically says.
Was I also doing something wrong when I did this? I am simply
reporting what Trend Micro says. If you trust your judgment over
Trend Micro then fine, but what gives you the right to judge me for
simply reporting on what Trend Micro says?
tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>
>> Sorry, my bad. Whatever, there are ~22 scanners at jotti, and
>> my installer passed them all. It is not good practice to make the
>> kind of unsubstantiated assertion that you made which can easily
>> spread across the Internet and have serious effects on the author
>> of such a program. By your (later) admission the Trend flag was
>> not a statement of fact, but a warning (almost certainly false).
>
> Unsubstantiated?
>
> Check this out............ 7rh28458c8jqva8actqlc81flo1qpio0ho@4ax.com
> The file could not be downloaded to completion without turning the
> virus scanner off. Now tell me how this isn't presented as a virus per
> Trend Micro.
>
> The second post was the picky details that you would only gain if you
> went online to look up the particular virus.
>
>
>
>
Have you ever heard of the term 'false positive'? All AV programs have
a few of these. All that is necessary is that segment of code resemble
the instructions commonly used in virus programs, and the AV program may
misidentify a file as a virus.
I would recommend getting confirmation from a reputable second source
before slandering a much loved program/author all over the newsgroups.
Re: Irfanview freeware bug? Batch JPEG lossless autorotation. Large directory failure consistent 
I just
Linear Mode
