<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Monkeyless</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.monkeyless.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com</link>
	<description>Yes, we have no monkeys</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by Gary</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-25459</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-25459</guid>
		<description>I'm a computer tech, and get a lot of business from folks like the ones in this thread who, despite the blatant warning flags, are insisting this is safe, wonderful, benign software.  When I first saw the site, I looked for normal signs of legitimate freeware...do they sell other apps, are they into open source, etc.  Nothing.  Reading the language used (even forgiving the poorly worded English) raises a lot of warning flags...why do they continually rant about how wonderful it is??  Keep insisting that it doesn't have spyware??  Why, if they're legit, can't they generate a program that doesn't trigger antivirus and spyware programs everywhere?  Think about it...if you developed a program that did something well, and decided to give it away rather than sell it, would you do a hard-sell "this is the best!!!" or would you offer it on its own merits and let the user decide?  What's the point of the hard-sell?  And why no configurable auto-update, or a warning that it will do so?  And why nag or insist that people update (hint...maybe to keep ahead of the anti-spyware program detections, for one)?  Why watermark a movie if the person refuses to update, isn't that up to the user?  This is not normal behavior for a legitimate freeware developer, not by a longshot.

The folks who say "quite being paranoid" or "it works OK for me, there's no virus" are the ones who will be bringing in their machines soon, or wondering how their bank information got leaked.  I build and repair computers, and all my systems have recent backups, but there's still no way this blatantly suspicious program will get installed on any of my machines; if I had the time I'd put it on an isolated bench machine and analyze the behavior, but it's not worth it, the signs are too obvious, don't use this, and if you're already using it, be careful what info is exchanged on that computer, besides being sure a solid, third party firewall is installed (not the Windows one, you need it to watch both inbound and outbound traffic).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a computer tech, and get a lot of business from folks like the ones in this thread who, despite the blatant warning flags, are insisting this is safe, wonderful, benign software.  When I first saw the site, I looked for normal signs of legitimate freeware&#8230;do they sell other apps, are they into open source, etc.  Nothing.  Reading the language used (even forgiving the poorly worded English) raises a lot of warning flags&#8230;why do they continually rant about how wonderful it is??  Keep insisting that it doesn&#8217;t have spyware??  Why, if they&#8217;re legit, can&#8217;t they generate a program that doesn&#8217;t trigger antivirus and spyware programs everywhere?  Think about it&#8230;if you developed a program that did something well, and decided to give it away rather than sell it, would you do a hard-sell &#8220;this is the best!!!&#8221; or would you offer it on its own merits and let the user decide?  What&#8217;s the point of the hard-sell?  And why no configurable auto-update, or a warning that it will do so?  And why nag or insist that people update (hint&#8230;maybe to keep ahead of the anti-spyware program detections, for one)?  Why watermark a movie if the person refuses to update, isn&#8217;t that up to the user?  This is not normal behavior for a legitimate freeware developer, not by a longshot.</p>
<p>The folks who say &#8220;quite being paranoid&#8221; or &#8220;it works OK for me, there&#8217;s no virus&#8221; are the ones who will be bringing in their machines soon, or wondering how their bank information got leaked.  I build and repair computers, and all my systems have recent backups, but there&#8217;s still no way this blatantly suspicious program will get installed on any of my machines; if I had the time I&#8217;d put it on an isolated bench machine and analyze the behavior, but it&#8217;s not worth it, the signs are too obvious, don&#8217;t use this, and if you&#8217;re already using it, be careful what info is exchanged on that computer, besides being sure a solid, third party firewall is installed (not the Windows one, you need it to watch both inbound and outbound traffic).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hotwire taxes and fees vs Orbitz and Expedia by Johnny Chako</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2005/10/29/hotwire-taxes-and-fees-vs-orbitz-and-expedia/#comment-25453</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny Chako</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/2005/10/29/hotwire-taxes-and-fees-vs-orbitz-and-expedia/#comment-25453</guid>
		<description>My advice is to use expedia or hotels.com to shop multiple hotels and collect pricing information only.   Then go to the hotel's own website to make the online booking.   Two reasons for this: 

1. Expedia and Hotels.com tack on an extra service charge and burry it in the "taxes and fees" so the customer doesn't notice it. 

2. If the hotel or hotel chain has a loyalty program that awards points or miles for hotel stays, you can maximize the award by booking directly through the hotel company.  

Expedia and Hotels.com are operated by the same company, and they have become very successful by taking a percentage of hotel revenue, and by their stealth practice of sticking the end user with a 2.5% - 3% service charge per night.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My advice is to use expedia or hotels.com to shop multiple hotels and collect pricing information only.   Then go to the hotel&#8217;s own website to make the online booking.   Two reasons for this: </p>
<p>1. Expedia and Hotels.com tack on an extra service charge and burry it in the &#8220;taxes and fees&#8221; so the customer doesn&#8217;t notice it. </p>
<p>2. If the hotel or hotel chain has a loyalty program that awards points or miles for hotel stays, you can maximize the award by booking directly through the hotel company.  </p>
<p>Expedia and Hotels.com are operated by the same company, and they have become very successful by taking a percentage of hotel revenue, and by their stealth practice of sticking the end user with a 2.5% - 3% service charge per night.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by Drax</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-24576</link>
		<dc:creator>Drax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-24576</guid>
		<description>my Avast Home Edition blocked me from using SUPER(c). Says it detected a threat or something..is it safe enough?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my Avast Home Edition blocked me from using SUPER(c). Says it detected a threat or something..is it safe enough?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by Neil</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-24377</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-24377</guid>
		<description>I've seen enough negatives to make up my mind not to use Super.  I'm looking for a program specifically to convert m2ts to WMV or AVI.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve seen enough negatives to make up my mind not to use Super.  I&#8217;m looking for a program specifically to convert m2ts to WMV or AVI.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by AntimalwareExpert</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-24127</link>
		<dc:creator>AntimalwareExpert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:13:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-24127</guid>
		<description>Dunno about Softpedia, but in research for Vundo effects I discovered that reputable websites engaged in distribution of software may be displaying links to contaminated software. This surprised me at first, but later I tested allegedly clean executable files with a dozen antispyware/antivirus programs - and none of them found malware inside the package. However, double-clicking on .exe immediately leads to system infection. Somehow it is possible to include malicious code into installers so that security programs miss it in on-demand scans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dunno about Softpedia, but in research for Vundo effects I discovered that reputable websites engaged in distribution of software may be displaying links to contaminated software. This surprised me at first, but later I tested allegedly clean executable files with a dozen antispyware/antivirus programs - and none of them found malware inside the package. However, double-clicking on .exe immediately leads to system infection. Somehow it is possible to include malicious code into installers so that security programs miss it in on-demand scans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by dev</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-23705</link>
		<dc:creator>dev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-23705</guid>
		<description>its the most useful software for the mobile users to convert the vedio or audio files for their use</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>its the most useful software for the mobile users to convert the vedio or audio files for their use</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by abajanga</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-23664</link>
		<dc:creator>abajanga</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-23664</guid>
		<description>I have downloadet SUPER © v2008 from the original Seite (http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html) and installed it. When I start the program, I get a virus warning. I deletet the infectet fil “MOTA113.exe“, but every time when i start the program i get the same warning. The virus installs it every time when I start the program.

"Win32:Trojan-gen {Other}" has been found in "C:\Windows\MOTA113.exe" file.  

My Scanner: avast version 4.8 home edition


What is the Problem!
Why have avast ”MOTA113.exe” in the database and not other virusscanner?


The answer from http://www.erightsoft.com/faqt.html
Q.033 After or during the installion of SUPER © my Anti-vir, Anti-adware, Anti-spyware, Anti-malware warned me of a
serious security threat. Why is that?

A. SUPER © is 100% clean. Check the SOFTPEDIA statement. 
We have counted 23 specialized download sites proposing SUPER © for download as a safe 100% clean package.

When you encounter a false detection, it is mostly heuristic, meaning that the anti-vir wasn't able to
parse and recognize the written code, so the file was flaged "suspicious, heuristic or gen (generic)" by default.

Due to the .exe files packer (tELock) used for almost all the files in the package in order to compress, protect and preserve
the integrity of our code, some anti-malware/vir may trigger a false detection as the tElock (Encryptor/Compressor) crypts the
files before packing them. A great deal of security is therefore achieved, preventing against the reverse engineering of our codes,
but the drawback of this protection is that some Anti-vir cannot even parse correctly the file to scan it, so they flag it "suspicious".
Any (with no exception) .exe or .dll file packed/crypted/protected with tElock may trigger a false detection with those
"heuristic based" Anti-vir programs. You may try tElock to pack any executable file of your choice to test it on your
favorite Anti-vir.

Advanced Anti-malware/vir like McAfee, Norton, Sophos.. are already aware of the tElock usage in our package and
do not trigger anymore those false detections.

If your Anti-vir database is updated online by your anti-vir application, we suggest you send a copy of the
flaged file to your anti-vir author to update and correct its database.

If any file of the package has been deleted or blocked by your Anti-malware/vir, SUPER © will become totally
inactive, and won't start anymore!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have downloadet SUPER © v2008 from the original Seite (http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html) and installed it. When I start the program, I get a virus warning. I deletet the infectet fil “MOTA113.exe“, but every time when i start the program i get the same warning. The virus installs it every time when I start the program.</p>
<p>&#8220;Win32:Trojan-gen {Other}&#8221; has been found in &#8220;C:\Windows\MOTA113.exe&#8221; file.  </p>
<p>My Scanner: avast version 4.8 home edition</p>
<p>What is the Problem!<br />
Why have avast ”MOTA113.exe” in the database and not other virusscanner?</p>
<p>The answer from <a href="http://www.erightsoft.com/faqt.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.erightsoft.com/faqt.html</a><br />
Q.033 After or during the installion of SUPER © my Anti-vir, Anti-adware, Anti-spyware, Anti-malware warned me of a<br />
serious security threat. Why is that?</p>
<p>A. SUPER © is 100% clean. Check the SOFTPEDIA statement.<br />
We have counted 23 specialized download sites proposing SUPER © for download as a safe 100% clean package.</p>
<p>When you encounter a false detection, it is mostly heuristic, meaning that the anti-vir wasn&#8217;t able to<br />
parse and recognize the written code, so the file was flaged &#8220;suspicious, heuristic or gen (generic)&#8221; by default.</p>
<p>Due to the .exe files packer (tELock) used for almost all the files in the package in order to compress, protect and preserve<br />
the integrity of our code, some anti-malware/vir may trigger a false detection as the tElock (Encryptor/Compressor) crypts the<br />
files before packing them. A great deal of security is therefore achieved, preventing against the reverse engineering of our codes,<br />
but the drawback of this protection is that some Anti-vir cannot even parse correctly the file to scan it, so they flag it &#8220;suspicious&#8221;.<br />
Any (with no exception) .exe or .dll file packed/crypted/protected with tElock may trigger a false detection with those<br />
&#8220;heuristic based&#8221; Anti-vir programs. You may try tElock to pack any executable file of your choice to test it on your<br />
favorite Anti-vir.</p>
<p>Advanced Anti-malware/vir like McAfee, Norton, Sophos.. are already aware of the tElock usage in our package and<br />
do not trigger anymore those false detections.</p>
<p>If your Anti-vir database is updated online by your anti-vir application, we suggest you send a copy of the<br />
flaged file to your anti-vir author to update and correct its database.</p>
<p>If any file of the package has been deleted or blocked by your Anti-malware/vir, SUPER © will become totally<br />
inactive, and won&#8217;t start anymore!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by Jason GIll</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-23473</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason GIll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-23473</guid>
		<description>I've posted instructions on &lt;a href="http://blog.gilluminate.com/2007/01/27/how-to-download-super-from-erightsoft/" rel="nofollow"&gt;How to download Super&lt;/a&gt; in case anyone is having problems. I have since abandoned Super, which I also explain on the page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve posted instructions on <a href="http://blog.gilluminate.com/2007/01/27/how-to-download-super-from-erightsoft/" rel="nofollow">How to download Super</a> in case anyone is having problems. I have since abandoned Super, which I also explain on the page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on eRightSoft&#8217;s SUPER Video Converter Looks Safe? by Mandy Samuels</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/#comment-23459</link>
		<dc:creator>Mandy Samuels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/?p=60#comment-23459</guid>
		<description>I downloaded and used super for ages without any problems at all.  To use a UK TV advert, it does exactly what it says on the tin (or web-site in this case).  The only time I've had a problem is when it told me today that there was a new version available, but everytime I try to download it the download finishes early and the file is corrupt?

I would still like to say to anyone who refuses to try a program just because someone else says it's dodgy, why???  They are basically scaremongerers, you get loads of them on the internet.  And if we all listened to them and did what they said all the time, life would be very very boring!

Super is a 5 star program, try it and see</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I downloaded and used super for ages without any problems at all.  To use a UK TV advert, it does exactly what it says on the tin (or web-site in this case).  The only time I&#8217;ve had a problem is when it told me today that there was a new version available, but everytime I try to download it the download finishes early and the file is corrupt?</p>
<p>I would still like to say to anyone who refuses to try a program just because someone else says it&#8217;s dodgy, why???  They are basically scaremongerers, you get loads of them on the internet.  And if we all listened to them and did what they said all the time, life would be very very boring!</p>
<p>Super is a 5 star program, try it and see</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Fixing Broken Windows Icons by KicktheCAN</title>
		<link>http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/09/17/fixing-broken-windows-icons/#comment-23140</link>
		<dc:creator>KicktheCAN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/09/17/fixing-broken-windows-icons/#comment-23140</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the great advice. Windows problems always seem to be easily fixed this way but it is almost never documented. If it were not for you I might have never gotten this fixed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the great advice. Windows problems always seem to be easily fixed this way but it is almost never documented. If it were not for you I might have never gotten this fixed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
