Simple x264/x265 Launcher v3.02 (2022-06-16)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by tormento

Why x264 binaries are different in size than the ones on Videolan?

Videolan.org builds do not have FFMS enabled. Also, apparently, a different (older) version of GCC was used.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

Simple x264/x265 Launcher v2.96

NVEncC 5.00 out now

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by tormento

NVEncC 5.00 out now

Try here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/mul...8.exe/download

[tormento]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

Try here

Did you included the new switches in the GUI?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by tormento

Did you included the new switches in the GUI?

The GUI generally does not handle any switches for you, except for the basic rate-control options and the Preset/Tuning/Profile selection.

Anything else you will have to add to the "Custom Encoder Parameters" field, if it should be required.

[r0lZ]

I am trying to install x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip (from here) but I can't. BitDefender detects curl.exe as a virus and blocks it, and since the temp directory created by 7-zip when I try to extract the file from the archive is always different, I can't exclude it from the scan.

Tried also the installer, with the same result.

I have managed to send curl.exe to VirusTotal, and indeed, it is considered as a virus by 13 antivirus engines: see here.

13/73 is a really bad score. Perhaps you should consider to remove, change or update that exe file ? Anyway, currently, a lot of peoples will be unable to install your program, and it's a pity.

Also, your program verifies the exe it needs, and refuse to work when curl.exe is not present or blocked, so currently, I can't use it.

[EDIT] I have restored the previous version of the launcher from a backup, and the curl.exe file in that release is not detected as a virus (only 1 engine detects it as suspicious). Also, its size is very different: 337 KB instead of 1154 KB. So, I guess that curl.exe in your latest release is really infected. Take care !

[tormento]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

BitDefender detects curl.exe as a virus and blocks it

Uninstall any AV you have and use Windows 10 one. It’s one of the best, if not the best indeed.

[videoh]

I confirm that Windows Defender finds no issues with curl.exe.

[Sharc]

It complains about Groucho's Avisynth Info Tool v1.1.0 instead……...

[r0lZ]

Originally Posted by tormento

Uninstall any AV you have and use Windows 10 one. It’s one of the best, if not the best indeed.

It's not because a specific antivirus doesn't detect it that it is not a virus. Also, M$ is well known for the bad quality of its antivirus programs, and although the latest engine might be better, it is not recommended by most comparative charts. As you can see here, BitDefender is still the best AV, far ahead of Windows Defender. I will certainly not uninstall the excellent BitDefender and trust M$ instead ! I would instead recommend exactly the opposite.

Anyway, I can only repeat that 13/73 is not an acceptable VirusTotal score, and the difference with the previous version means that something is obviously wrong. Even if, out of the blue, the bad score is caused by an unlikely series of false positives, many users will not be able to use the launcher while that file is present. IMO, that means that something must be done to fix the problem.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

Anyway, I can only repeat that 13/73 is not an acceptable VirusTotal score, and the difference with the previous version means that something is obviously wrong. Even if, out of the blue, the bad score is caused by an unlikely series of false positives, many users will not be able to use the launcher while that file is present.

Yup, 13 out of 73 anti-virus programs causing false positives definitely is not acceptable. But this fits the picture. The “quality” of anti-virus software is one sad story.

Just in case anybody missed it, researchers just recently found a serious vulnerability affecting (almost) every anti-virus software on the marked and turning them into self-destructive tools:
https://www.rack911labs.com/research...irus-software/

Originally Posted by r0lZ

IMO, that means that something must be done to fix the problem.

Definitely! And that "something" is that people and enterprises really need to stop giving any money to anti-virus companies for as long as they keep on delivering the crapware that they have been selling for decades now. If and only if the anti-virus companies' choice is to either get their stuff fixed or to go bankrupt, then something might change. But, for as long as people keep on complaining about anti-virus-related problems to the innocent software developers – who can do exactly nothing about the cause of the problem, and who hopefully don't waste their time on trying to workaround the symptoms – rather than demanding the required fixes from the anti-virus companies, certainly nothing is going to change...

Originally Posted by r0lZ

I have restored the previous version of the launcher from a backup, and the curl.exe file in that release is not detected as a virus (only 1 engine detects it as suspicious). Also, its size is very different: 337 KB instead of 1154 KB. So, I guess that curl.exe in your latest release is really infected. Take care!

cURL has been updated to the latest version. The binary shipped with Simple x264 Launcher is the one provided on the "official" cURL web-site.

Note that, depending on which compiler is used to build cURL, depending on which of the optional dependencies are enabled, and depending on whether dependencies are linked statically or as DLL, the size of the binary may change quite a lot.

(I think older Windows binaries of cURL were linked against Windows' Schannel DLL for SSL/TLS, while the newer ones are statically linked against OpenSSL; probably to enable TLS 1.3 independently of the Windows version)

[jlw_4049]

Just use windows defender. Works perfectly.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[videoh]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

BitDefender is still the best AV

As if we don't have enough shills for BitDefender.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by jlw_4049

Just use windows defender. Works perfectly.

"Perfectly" is an exaggeration, IMO, but it is definitely one of the less annoying ones.

The reason is obvious: Microsoft is providing Defender as a "free" (yes, provided you have a Windows license) component. So their interest is not in selling Defender licenses, but in keeping Defender-related support cases at a minimum. Hence, the usual scare tactics (i.e. ensure that there will be alerts about alleged "dangerous" files at regular intervals), which are used by other a/v companies to get their customers into renewing the payed subscription, aren't relevant here.

[jlw_4049]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

"Perfectly" is an exaggeration, IMO, but it is definitely one of the less annoying ones.

The reason is obvious: Microsoft is providing Defender as a "free" (yes, provided you have a Windows license) component. So their interest is not in selling Defender licenses, but in keeping Defender-related support cases at a minimum. Hence, the usual scare tactics (i.e. ensure that there will be alerts about alleged "dangerous" files at regular intervals), which are used by other a/v companies to get their customers into renewing the payed subscription, aren't relevant here.

Yes I agree. I've never had any issues with it, as opposed to other virus software programs actually causing me issues and hours and hours of my time trouble shooting something that the virus software was causing the entire time.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by HolyWu

The false positive is probably caused by UPX packing.

Please don't mix up symptom and cause.

If the same EXE file, of which we know it's 100% clean, gets classified as "malware" just because it was packed by UPX, then that is a symptom of a serious bug in the a/v software.

The cause is a bug in the a/v software, not that the file was packed by UPX.

Regardless of the "pros" and "cons" of EXE packing that could be discussed, the use of EXE packers – especially the very popular UPX – per se is perfectly legitimate and therefore must not be blocked by a/v software under any circumstances!

Being able to deal with EXE packes and analyze the actual (uncompressed) code has been a standard feature of a/v software for decades now. If they haven't been able to get this working properly by now, time to find another job...

Originally Posted by HolyWu

That's one of the reason I am never a fan of UPX.

Unfortunately, it is exactly this kind of subservient behavior, i.e. changing your perfectly legitimate behavior in order to workaround bugs in A/V software, which makes these people think they can get away with it.

Not going to happen for me

Originally Posted by HolyWu

The curl in x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip gets a 4/72 score now on VirusTotal; on the other hand, the official curl binary gets a 0/71 score.

Quite possible that tomorrow, after the anti-virus "gods" have rolled their dice again (aka "the next signature update"), these numbers will be the other way around

[videoh]

Originally Posted by HolyWu

The false positive is probably caused by UPX packing. That's one of the reason I am never a fan of UPX. The curl in x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip gets a 4/72 score now on VirusTotal; on the other hand, the official curl binary gets a 0/71 score.

Seems like Simple Launcher (great app) should use the official binary. What did I miss?

[r0lZ]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

"Perfectly" is an exaggeration, IMO, but it is definitely one of the less annoying ones.

Of course. An antivirus that doesn't detect "true positive" virus is less annoying than a good antivirus that detects all virus. And if the BitDefender antivirus is the best according to AV Comparatives, it's of course because it doesn't omit some virus, but also because it has almost almost no false positives. So, IMO, it should be trusted.

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

The reason is obvious: Microsoft is providing Defender as a "free" (yes, provided you have a Windows license) component. So their interest is not in selling Defender licenses, but in keeping Defender-related support cases at a minimum.

And therefore probably its ease in letting important viruses through.

I remember that in the past M$ explicitly requested to install a third party antivirus, and explained that Defender is only a small barrier active during the installation of Windows, and that it was essential to replace it with a real, powerful antivirus. I can admit that since XP, Defender has made progress, but the fact is that it remains one of the worst.

Also, a VA provider cannot afford to have a too bad score, or too many false positives, because its reputation depends on it, which also leaves it with little chance of selling its solutions. So, sorry, but I don't think they detect false positives on purpose.

Anyway, I use BitDefender FREE Edition. I can agree that they may try to sell their paid software by scaring you, but it is certainly one of the most silent AV I know, unlike other free AV like Avast for example. So, IMO, the commercial argument is not really convincing.

Anyway, the fact remains that many users will be scared by the AV warning, and will uninstall your program immediately. It's a pity, especially if it is sufficient to install a good version of curl.exe, that doesn't trigger so many false (or true) positives.

Originally Posted by HolyWu

The curl in x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip gets a 4/72 score now on VirusTotal; on the other hand, the official curl binary gets a 0/71 score.

Another evidence that something is wrong. It is always possible that a programmer has built that version on an infected computer. Precautions are essential, as with corona!

For my part, I have only pointed out the problem to enable you to act in the best possible way. I don't want to interfere any more, but for my part, I have replaced the questionable version with a good one. I can no longer ask to check for updates from the program (why?) but at least I can encode again.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

Of course.

Omitting my considerations about necessity and dangers of 3rd party AV, I can only suggest you

THIS

[stax76]

I use curl in the updater function of mpv.net and MediaInfo.NET, in Windows 10 curl is included, in Windows 7 my feature is broken and I don't care, I'm not really spending extra time only for Windows 7 users, who wants the update feature has to install powershell 5.1 and curl.