(Commercial content removed as per site rules) Both programs will let you remove backgrounds and use layers. It would be nice to have a desktop program, for Windows, to make this easier. Rarely do I edit my photos on my phone or camera. They get transferred to the computer, edited and placed back on my mobile device.
Thanks for this..a very handy tool to have. One thing though..it says here up to 5 GB on the free plan, but on their site, it says you only get 3 GB..thought it worth mentioning.
I'm glad you like it, I like to keep data locally on more than one media.
Thanks for the heads up, I got the 5 GB somewhere on their site and didn't see the different number right in front of my face. It's been one of those weeks.
Thanks for this, I've been looking for a tool that does this. And BTW I had no problem with 3 or 5 GB: I downloaded 10 GB of emails with no problems (except the time it took!).
I've been using the Upsafe Gmail Backup Software on my home PC to backup my Gmail and this worked well until recently. I had problems with this software backing up my gmail account. So I logged off from the Upsafe software and reinstalled. When I restarted the app and selected, "Sign in with Google" and I enter my account details, I get the following message from Google via the Upsafe app - "This browser or app may not be secure. Learn more. Try using a different browser. If you’re already using a supported browser, you can refresh your screen and try again to sign in." Has anyone else experienced this problem and identified a solution? Thanks in advance. Steve
Alas, someone made a good program and crapped on it with OpenCandy.
Maybe one day authors will stop all this sneaky stuff and produce good stuff like PCFile and PC Write. If it's good, people will register...eventually.
I have just downloaded the free VSEncryptor from LOKIBIT. The file is 2.24 MB (2.7 MB for Windows 64-bit) and it's clean according to avast! AntiVirus and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. It can encrypt text and files and supports 21(!) encryption algorithms. It's worth a try. http://lokibit.com/products.htm#vsencryptor
I am pretty sure you can do a custom install and omit open candy.
References:
"For those of you who want to remove OpenCandy: Extract the Axcrypt Installer with OpenCandy Offer using 7-Zip. Open the folder and delete $PLUGINSDIR. This should remove the OpenCandy junk from the installer."
- found on: http://sourceforge.net/projects/axcrypt/reviews
For those who're interested in getting a full setup with no OpenCandy, open the Windows Command Prompt from the folder containing the setup file and run it with a /nocandy switch, e.g.
AxCrypt-1.7.3156.0-Setup.exe /nocandy
It works like a charm for me. To open the Windows Command Prompt from the folder containing the setup file, see this tip.
I followed the link from drh2020 (http://www.axantum.com/axcrypt/freeware.html). The author is very clear about what he is doing and why, he's not trying to sneak anything past the user.
He also provides a clear explanation of how to install the program without the additional "features" (by explaining a command line install, or for those who don't know what that means he explains what to do to decline them)
There's even the option to download an "uncontaminated" version, but that does require a free registration -- with a working email address
I'd say on balance this is acceptable. He is open and clear on how gets some income to make a free program I want to use, and allows me to opt out if I wish.
You make it sound like OpenCandy is some sort of malware, it is not. It's adware, and last time I checked it's completely optional.
It's not unreasonable for developers to try earn some money by including something like OpenCandy which is as far as I can tell is completely harmless. If you don't like the included application(s), then choose not to install them, it's as simple as that.
I'm really getting tired of people whining about OpenCandy.
>> For this reason alone, I can't recommend that you use the standard, installable version of AxCrypt.
Thanks for at least sharing this great working freeware with us!
I hope the fact that a freeware program includes OpenCandy will NEVER be a reason not to even mention it here!
For me, OpenCandy is no issue given it is dead simple to workaround/opt out.
Just use your brains and read the text of the different installation windows carefully when you install ANYTHING.
The staff at Gizmo's attempts to be thorough when providing product reviews so let's applaud the effort and not complain when they mention items such as Open Candy. I use a program called "Unchecky" http://unchecky.com/ which runs in the background to deal with this type of garbage.
Rob, give this a try....place several files inside a single folder. Now encrypt that folder. All files in that folder should be encrypted. At least it works for me. I also installed the non-OpenCandy version simply by registering for free with a throw-away email address. You actually gave a great write up of AxCrypt compared to TrueCrypt a couple years ago here at Gizmos.
I'm afraid I've noticed a certain degree of bias against OpenCandy on several occasions from some Gizmo's staff/users, so how can I not complain when they demonize "OpenCandy" and use terms such as "OpenCandy-infected".
Also, the author goes as far was stating that he cannot recommend the installable version just because it comes with OpenCandy? That's not fair in my opinion.
OpenCandy is not malware and I've never faced any problems with it, I always just unchecked it and installed the application normally.
There are far worse adwares out there, some cleverly hidden that the user could miss it and other don't even give you a choice.
I second that.
Rather than call Open Candy "malware", it should be classified as a "PUP", or "Potentially Unwanted Program", as some anti-virus/anti-spyware programs typically will do.
I have used AxCrypt for some time now and have nothing but good things to report about it. It is excellent software, is dead simple to use, and does what it says it will do. When I had a question about something, I emailed the developer and got a prompt and informative answer.
As to OpenCandy (OC), it is of course appropriate for Gizmo's to note in any review that OC will appear during the installation process and to inform potentially unaware readers as to what OC is and how to avoid installing something they may not want. However, the AxCrypt developer is very open and honest about why he includes OC and provides clear and easy instructions for installing AxCrypt without OC.
By way of comparison, look at how Adobe tries to trick the unaware into installing McAfee Security Scan Plus during Adobe Flash Player updates. Is the Adobe update process "McAfee-infected?"
Instead of calling any program "OpenCandy-infected," it might be better if Gizmo's were to have a standard advisory note which could be inserted into the review of any software which contains OC. That brief note could then refer those readers who are unfamiliar with OC to a Gizmo's reference page which explains OC in more detail and explains how to avoid installing OC software if you don't want it.
I really appreciate all the hard work that Rob and the other Gizmo's reviewers put into researching and presenting free software choices, and I highly value the reviews in Gizmo's, but I have to say that using the term "OpenCandy-infected" for AxCrypt is unfair and unjustly maligns an elegantly simple and useful program which is well-designed, safe to install, and works well. Based on my personal experience, I recommend AxCrypt highly.
Many of these comments leave me to believe that a lot of people think Open Candy is optional. In my experience it isn't.
I recently installed IMGBurn. I did not select any optional software during the install process, and yet Malwarebytes detected Open Candy on my fresh OS install.
This constitutes an unwanted intrusion IMO. I was lead to believe I was installing IMGBurn and nothing else, and yet that crap was installed too. The sooner the majority labels it as unacceptable, the sooner devs stop including it in their installers.
What happens with an installer that includes Open Candy is that when the installation runs, a dll file is executed, usually "OCSetupHlp.dll" in my experience and it is this that MBAM and some other anti-malwares will detect as a PUP. Also most third-party firewalls will pick it up if configured to make executables ask before connecting to the internet.
The dll file is extracted to, and run from, the system temp directory and connects to the internet to show you the various bundled offers. If you decline all the extras then the dll is deleted after the installer finishes and nothing is left on your system except the program you wanted.
You can read about this in more detail on the OpenCandy website and observe the process for yourself with basic system monitoring freeware and/or a sandbox/virtualised OS.
That's interesting because both WOT and my Avast Online Security plugin are green and indicate no risk for the Unchecky site. The program has worked well for me with no problems.
I agree with most commenters here: calling Axcrypt "OpenCandy-infected" is unfair, just like calling Gizmo "Adwords-infected".
With the slight difference that opting out of OpenCandy in AxCrypt (or not installing from the beginning) is so easy that I'm surprised the author of this article was not able to do it, while opting out from Google Retargeting is a bit more complex. Furthermore, I've not seen any "Warning, you'll be tracked by BigG because we earn money on you via AW" when opening this page, so just to apply your line of reasoning you didn't give the option to opt-out, while AxCrypt does. :-)
"For me, OpenCandy is no issue given it is dead simple to workaround/opt out."
Yeah, but for how long... THAT is the question. I've had open candy sneak on my machine due to the opt out box being out of view... yeah, that is sneaky.
Any type of adware, Is malware. Developers need to stop including this kind of garbage in their software. It is not needed nor wanted. Gizmos provides a great service and is trying to protect us from the junk. You guys need to stop bashing the staff at Gizmos, they are only trying to help us and many people don't want to go through all the garbage to install something. It should be a straight forward install, not use the Command promp, not opening the file to pick out the adware exe, or anything of that sort. They, ( Devs ) shouldn't be so hungry they resort to adding crap in their programs just to make a buck.
I'll second that mouse53, with 1 clarification, I do understand that freeware creators need, want or hope to make money on their software and I will help them when I can.
It always seemed simple to me, IF an adware or toolbar developer is truly proud of their software, all they have to do is add a little blurb during the freeware installation telling you it is available and what it does and then have an UNchecked box where I can opt-in if I am interested.
Having a hidden or difficult to find box that is already checked and I HAVE to opt-out to avoid is underhanded no matter how you look at it.
IMHO That includes Adobe w/McAfee.
I also appreciate Gizmos giving me a heads-up when a program is infected with un-necessary and probably unwanted add-ons.
I thought Rob down under, and several of us a few months ago starting calling it Crapware. There's Shareware, Freeware, Public Domain, Commercial or Boxware, and Crapware.
There's nothing wrong with a developer offering it as Shareware with a time bomb in it after 90 days from Installing. Jim Button made a good living with PCFile.
There is another alternative to Truecrypt. Its called Veracrypt and is based on Truecrypt. Major advantage: It adds enhanced security to the algorithms used for system and partitions encryption making it immune to new developments in brute-force attacks. The container format is not compatible to truecrypt.
Website: http://veracrypt.sourceforge.net/
I've had my own experiences with OC and I think much depends on where you download it from. I've downloaded AxCrypt from sourceforge.net and not had a problem with it wanting to install other crap. I've used it for quite a while and like it very much and my scanners haven't picked up any issues with it (one of which is Malwarebytes as mentioned). That said, I suspect if a person downloaded it from cnet, through yahoo, etc - they'd probably pick up the crap mentioned by others here during the install.
WAIT! The solution to the OpenCandy issue is simple. Download the .exe. Open the file with 7-zip. Just extract the .msi file - none of the other files. MSI is Microsoft's built-in package installer technology. Right click on the .msi, chose Install, and you're fine. You will not be prompted for the optional installs like OpenCandy, because they are not in the .msi package. The are embedded in the setup.exe (archive) separately. Upload the .msi to VirusTotal and see for yourself. you do not need to run the setup.exe to install AxCrypt. Just use the .msi.
BTW, AxCrypt is awesome. And you can encrypt many files or even a folder all at once.
It would be good to note the comments at tomsguide.com on antivirus about the merger of AVG and Avast and the differences now between the two. It appears that Avast might be the better choice given recent developments. Please correct me if I am in error.
Three to five AVG modules are recognized as PuPs and removed by every better clean-up program I know and regularly use. Just yesterday I delivered an originally badly messed up computer back to a customer and showed the log files of above mentioned clean-up programs to the lady. AVG were numerically among the most numerous things that showed up. And that machine is no exception.
And to name names here: The clean-up programs I refer to are JRT, Adw-Cleaner and Malwarebytes Free.
I really take issue with even still writing about AVG - and then in a place like Gizmo's Freeware that so many people have over years learned to trust.
Anybody else sensing the slippery (down-)slope ahead?
This applies to much of the other software listed here which either `offers` potentially unwanted programs during the install process directly, or via the third party download hosting site. Whenever we are aware of this an installer warning is included in the product details of full reviews. MC - Site Manager.
I'll say what Rob and MC are too busy or too polite to say. YOU are wrong --loudly and undeservedly offensively wrong.
First, "Potentially Unwanted Programs" MAY BE just that, "potentially unwanted". Some 'security' programs flag other programs -- security-related and otherwise-- that THEY have unilaterally determined to be "potentially unwanted" only to alert the user who, then, can make his/her own decision whether the subject is "wanted" or not. For example, the Chrome browser extension offered with Avast!'s and AVG's installers IS WANTED by many users while NOT WANTED by others and, in any event, is prominently identified as "optional" by those installers. The user can choose for him/herSELF.
Second, One of your so-called "better clean-up program[s]", namely Malwarebytes (MWB), recently, itself, has become a "potentially unwanted program" that flags so very many useful, legitimate programs as PUPs or, even as malware, that I no longer treat its findings as reliable on-their-face. It appears that MWB intentionally flags competitors' products as PUPs or malware in an insidious marketing ploy to disadvantage them. And, to add insult to injury, since going commercial, MWB has gotten so much heavier-and-heavier on system resources that I, a life-time multiple-licensee, disable it except for the periodic scan whose results I have to go through with a fine-toothed comb.
In short, no one security program is better than all others in every instance and, therefore, should not be used as THE benchmark in always assessing all others.
Finally, to answer your polemical question: No, I do not sense any slippery, downward slope here at GIZMO's Place. I suspect almost no other fair-minded, well-informed and truly experienced computer user who finds his/her way here does either. Your assertion otherwise is just another one of those Probably Unwarranted Opinions littering the Internet.
Thanks rob,
It's been a few years since I last used AVG as my default anti virus.
For the past few years, I've been using Qihoo 360 and although it's quite good, I do get the odd false positive which is frustrating.
After reading your views on AVG rob,
I'm going to divorce Qihoo 360 and hop into bed with AVG for a fling..... yep, it's time for a change.
As for AVG being flagged as a nasty...... you don't get to stay in business for more than ten years as they have, if it's not good.
Yes, I agree that Avast is a nice piece of free anti virus......... but, the constant pop-ups forced me to get rid of it last year.
I now use "360 security"...... it's free, it works well and definitely not intrusive, ie. no pop-ups and no adds. https://www.360totalsecurity.com/en/
Avast has been my antivirus for years now, and I am perfectly happy with it. It's light on the system despite having several features. I also like its shields, and its web shield particularly keeps me secure.
I don't mind the occasional pop-ups. For such an excellent product for free, I can tolerate a few pop-ups.
If your going to recommend products from both Sophos and Avast Rob, I think you should provide the pros and cons comparison that we generally get for software that falls into the same category. It's the ability of Gizmos to assist users in sorting out similar products that really sets it apart from other freeware sites.
Personally I removed Avast free from a friend's machine it was causing issues with their back up software even after adding these to Avast whitelist.
I have also lost count on how many untech end users have been fooled by its constant pop up asking you to buy it. They purchase the software while they could of been served just fine with the free version.
I also dont like the kitchen sink approach that the software has taken into adding tweaking software etc to the app. Stick with being an anti-virus software!
Long time Avast is my main choice and recommendation for family, friends and customers. Evaluating pros and cons, I think it is one of the best free antivirus.
A tip for the ones who are annoyed with pop ups: it's possible to configure Avast for showing pop ups for just 1 second.
I also recently removed Avast from my WinXP laptop. I was having problems with mini-freezes, sluggish behavior, and most recently, complete freezes before the full boot-up was finished. I narrowed it down to Avast (the freezing, that is), and replaced it with Comodo Antivirus (just the antivirus, not their Internet Suite), since I already had the Comodo Firewall installed.
The freezing was immediately gone, and now the system seems to startup, shutdown, and run a little faster.
The specs are:
Older Compaq Presario V2000Z Laptop with Windows XP
CPU: AMD Turion 64 ML-34 single core 1.58Ghz
Ram: Total Physical = 2GB, Total Available = 1GB
The specs seem fine enough for Avast to function nicely. I had XP on a 512 MB RAM, and that caused a bit of slowdown. Avast can be a bit slow when coming across folders full of exe files, on computers with low specs, but otherwise it runs fine.
Don't know what caused Avast to behave so on your system.
I don't install other components of Avast though, only the necessary shields. I don't need the extras.
Avast did work just fine for many years on this laptop, although it probably did slow things down just a bit.
I presume one of the recent updates is what caused the problem (maybe one within the last several months).
I was looking for a free antivirus and Avast sounded promising.
Downloaded and start to install it on a fresh windows 10 machine, after all 275 megs were downloaded started to install the antivirus and after 30 minutes still trying...
I stopped the install only to find out that the program was installed (according to windows), it was working fine but I was worried about a defective install, so I tried to uninstall it, the choices it give me were REPAIR o CHANGE but not uninstall, neither one of those choices helped me to uninstall.
Finally downloaded Revo uninstaller and got the machine clean, downloaded PANDA and in a few minutes got everything working ok.
YMMV.
The free version of Avast does NOT include a firewall, but is blocking Windows Firewall from working because it is telling Windows that it is taking care of that.. I see no way to work around this so will uninstall Avast. This is a very nasty tactic to try to force you into buying the version with firewall. I also have a paid version with all bells and whistles on another more critical computer and will not be renewing my license because of this sneakiness.
Avast was bloatware on my computer. It also kept popping up with messages advertising their other products. I'm done with antiviruses. Using a firewall and common sense instead.
This is a list of the most recently posted comments on the site sorted so that the most recent comments appear first.
You can however sort the list on Article title by clicking on the column heading. To see actual comments click the + sign.
(Commercial content removed as per site rules) Both programs will let you remove backgrounds and use layers. It would be nice to have a desktop program, for Windows, to make this easier. Rarely do I edit my photos on my phone or camera. They get transferred to the computer, edited and placed back on my mobile device.
Thanks for this..a very handy tool to have. One thing though..it says here up to 5 GB on the free plan, but on their site, it says you only get 3 GB..thought it worth mentioning.
I'm glad you like it, I like to keep data locally on more than one media.
Thanks for the heads up, I got the 5 GB somewhere on their site and didn't see the different number right in front of my face. It's been one of those weeks.
Thanks for this, I've been looking for a tool that does this. And BTW I had no problem with 3 or 5 GB: I downloaded 10 GB of emails with no problems (except the time it took!).
You're welcome, and thanks for the heads up on larger data download. :)
Mailstore Home
https://www.mailstore.com/en/products/mailstore-home/
Mailstore is a great program, it's been featured on the site - it's quite popular. :)
I've been using the Upsafe Gmail Backup Software on my home PC to backup my Gmail and this worked well until recently. I had problems with this software backing up my gmail account. So I logged off from the Upsafe software and reinstalled. When I restarted the app and selected, "Sign in with Google" and I enter my account details, I get the following message from Google via the Upsafe app - "This browser or app may not be secure. Learn more. Try using a different browser. If you’re already using a supported browser, you can refresh your screen and try again to sign in." Has anyone else experienced this problem and identified a solution? Thanks in advance. Steve
I received a notification from Google yesterday that they would no longer allow Upsafe to access my Gmail.
I would contact Upsafe, I can't find anything definitive right now about the issue. They have chat and a support page on their site.
I'm assuming you've enabled the allow less secure apps setting in your google account.
Alas, someone made a good program and crapped on it with OpenCandy.
Maybe one day authors will stop all this sneaky stuff and produce good stuff like PCFile and PC Write. If it's good, people will register...eventually.
I have just downloaded the free VSEncryptor from LOKIBIT. The file is 2.24 MB (2.7 MB for Windows 64-bit) and it's clean according to avast! AntiVirus and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. It can encrypt text and files and supports 21(!) encryption algorithms. It's worth a try.
http://lokibit.com/products.htm#vsencryptor
I am pretty sure you can do a custom install and omit open candy.
References:
"For those of you who want to remove OpenCandy: Extract the Axcrypt Installer with OpenCandy Offer using 7-Zip. Open the folder and delete $PLUGINSDIR. This should remove the OpenCandy junk from the installer."
- found on: http://sourceforge.net/projects/axcrypt/reviews
Also, check this out:
http://www.axantum.com/axcrypt/freeware.html
I followed the link from drh2020 (http://www.axantum.com/axcrypt/freeware.html). The author is very clear about what he is doing and why, he's not trying to sneak anything past the user.
He also provides a clear explanation of how to install the program without the additional "features" (by explaining a command line install, or for those who don't know what that means he explains what to do to decline them)
There's even the option to download an "uncontaminated" version, but that does require a free registration -- with a working email address
I'd say on balance this is acceptable. He is open and clear on how gets some income to make a free program I want to use, and allows me to opt out if I wish.
You make it sound like OpenCandy is some sort of malware, it is not. It's adware, and last time I checked it's completely optional.
It's not unreasonable for developers to try earn some money by including something like OpenCandy which is as far as I can tell is completely harmless. If you don't like the included application(s), then choose not to install them, it's as simple as that.
I'm really getting tired of people whining about OpenCandy.
It would be interesting to see how successful a website would be if they offered only CANDYWARE programs. Just Sayin' YMMV
>> For this reason alone, I can't recommend that you use the standard, installable version of AxCrypt.
Thanks for at least sharing this great working freeware with us!
I hope the fact that a freeware program includes OpenCandy will NEVER be a reason not to even mention it here!
For me, OpenCandy is no issue given it is dead simple to workaround/opt out.
Just use your brains and read the text of the different installation windows carefully when you install ANYTHING.
The staff at Gizmo's attempts to be thorough when providing product reviews so let's applaud the effort and not complain when they mention items such as Open Candy. I use a program called "Unchecky" http://unchecky.com/ which runs in the background to deal with this type of garbage.
Rob, give this a try....place several files inside a single folder. Now encrypt that folder. All files in that folder should be encrypted. At least it works for me. I also installed the non-OpenCandy version simply by registering for free with a throw-away email address. You actually gave a great write up of AxCrypt compared to TrueCrypt a couple years ago here at Gizmos.
I'm afraid I've noticed a certain degree of bias against OpenCandy on several occasions from some Gizmo's staff/users, so how can I not complain when they demonize "OpenCandy" and use terms such as "OpenCandy-infected".
Also, the author goes as far was stating that he cannot recommend the installable version just because it comes with OpenCandy? That's not fair in my opinion.
OpenCandy is not malware and I've never faced any problems with it, I always just unchecked it and installed the application normally.
There are far worse adwares out there, some cleverly hidden that the user could miss it and other don't even give you a choice.
I tend to agree with that...
I second that.
Rather than call Open Candy "malware", it should be classified as a "PUP", or "Potentially Unwanted Program", as some anti-virus/anti-spyware programs typically will do.
I have used AxCrypt for some time now and have nothing but good things to report about it. It is excellent software, is dead simple to use, and does what it says it will do. When I had a question about something, I emailed the developer and got a prompt and informative answer.
As to OpenCandy (OC), it is of course appropriate for Gizmo's to note in any review that OC will appear during the installation process and to inform potentially unaware readers as to what OC is and how to avoid installing something they may not want. However, the AxCrypt developer is very open and honest about why he includes OC and provides clear and easy instructions for installing AxCrypt without OC.
By way of comparison, look at how Adobe tries to trick the unaware into installing McAfee Security Scan Plus during Adobe Flash Player updates. Is the Adobe update process "McAfee-infected?"
Instead of calling any program "OpenCandy-infected," it might be better if Gizmo's were to have a standard advisory note which could be inserted into the review of any software which contains OC. That brief note could then refer those readers who are unfamiliar with OC to a Gizmo's reference page which explains OC in more detail and explains how to avoid installing OC software if you don't want it.
I really appreciate all the hard work that Rob and the other Gizmo's reviewers put into researching and presenting free software choices, and I highly value the reviews in Gizmo's, but I have to say that using the term "OpenCandy-infected" for AxCrypt is unfair and unjustly maligns an elegantly simple and useful program which is well-designed, safe to install, and works well. Based on my personal experience, I recommend AxCrypt highly.
Just FYI, when I hover my mouse over the link for http://unchecky.com, I get a yellow WOT warning. Caveat emptor.
Many of these comments leave me to believe that a lot of people think Open Candy is optional. In my experience it isn't.
I recently installed IMGBurn. I did not select any optional software during the install process, and yet Malwarebytes detected Open Candy on my fresh OS install.
This constitutes an unwanted intrusion IMO. I was lead to believe I was installing IMGBurn and nothing else, and yet that crap was installed too. The sooner the majority labels it as unacceptable, the sooner devs stop including it in their installers.
>> I did not select any optional software during the install process
Afaik, with OpenCandy, you should UNselect any optional software
What happens with an installer that includes Open Candy is that when the installation runs, a dll file is executed, usually "OCSetupHlp.dll" in my experience and it is this that MBAM and some other anti-malwares will detect as a PUP. Also most third-party firewalls will pick it up if configured to make executables ask before connecting to the internet.
The dll file is extracted to, and run from, the system temp directory and connects to the internet to show you the various bundled offers. If you decline all the extras then the dll is deleted after the installer finishes and nothing is left on your system except the program you wanted.
You can read about this in more detail on the OpenCandy website and observe the process for yourself with basic system monitoring freeware and/or a sandbox/virtualised OS.
That's interesting because both WOT and my Avast Online Security plugin are green and indicate no risk for the Unchecky site. The program has worked well for me with no problems.
I agree with most commenters here: calling Axcrypt "OpenCandy-infected" is unfair, just like calling Gizmo "Adwords-infected".
With the slight difference that opting out of OpenCandy in AxCrypt (or not installing from the beginning) is so easy that I'm surprised the author of this article was not able to do it, while opting out from Google Retargeting is a bit more complex. Furthermore, I've not seen any "Warning, you'll be tracked by BigG because we earn money on you via AW" when opening this page, so just to apply your line of reasoning you didn't give the option to opt-out, while AxCrypt does. :-)
"For me, OpenCandy is no issue given it is dead simple to workaround/opt out."
Yeah, but for how long... THAT is the question. I've had open candy sneak on my machine due to the opt out box being out of view... yeah, that is sneaky.
Any type of adware, Is malware. Developers need to stop including this kind of garbage in their software. It is not needed nor wanted. Gizmos provides a great service and is trying to protect us from the junk. You guys need to stop bashing the staff at Gizmos, they are only trying to help us and many people don't want to go through all the garbage to install something. It should be a straight forward install, not use the Command promp, not opening the file to pick out the adware exe, or anything of that sort. They, ( Devs ) shouldn't be so hungry they resort to adding crap in their programs just to make a buck.
I'll second that mouse53, with 1 clarification, I do understand that freeware creators need, want or hope to make money on their software and I will help them when I can.
It always seemed simple to me, IF an adware or toolbar developer is truly proud of their software, all they have to do is add a little blurb during the freeware installation telling you it is available and what it does and then have an UNchecked box where I can opt-in if I am interested.
Having a hidden or difficult to find box that is already checked and I HAVE to opt-out to avoid is underhanded no matter how you look at it.
IMHO That includes Adobe w/McAfee.
I also appreciate Gizmos giving me a heads-up when a program is infected with un-necessary and probably unwanted add-ons.
I thought Rob down under, and several of us a few months ago starting calling it Crapware. There's Shareware, Freeware, Public Domain, Commercial or Boxware, and Crapware.
There's nothing wrong with a developer offering it as Shareware with a time bomb in it after 90 days from Installing. Jim Button made a good living with PCFile.
Crapware will never succeed anywhere.
There is another alternative to Truecrypt. Its called Veracrypt and is based on Truecrypt. Major advantage: It adds enhanced security to the algorithms used for system and partitions encryption making it immune to new developments in brute-force attacks. The container format is not compatible to truecrypt.
Website: http://veracrypt.sourceforge.net/
I've had my own experiences with OC and I think much depends on where you download it from. I've downloaded AxCrypt from sourceforge.net and not had a problem with it wanting to install other crap. I've used it for quite a while and like it very much and my scanners haven't picked up any issues with it (one of which is Malwarebytes as mentioned). That said, I suspect if a person downloaded it from cnet, through yahoo, etc - they'd probably pick up the crap mentioned by others here during the install.
WAIT! The solution to the OpenCandy issue is simple. Download the .exe. Open the file with 7-zip. Just extract the .msi file - none of the other files. MSI is Microsoft's built-in package installer technology. Right click on the .msi, chose Install, and you're fine. You will not be prompted for the optional installs like OpenCandy, because they are not in the .msi package. The are embedded in the setup.exe (archive) separately. Upload the .msi to VirusTotal and see for yourself. you do not need to run the setup.exe to install AxCrypt. Just use the .msi.
BTW, AxCrypt is awesome. And you can encrypt many files or even a folder all at once.
It would be good to note the comments at tomsguide.com on antivirus about the merger of AVG and Avast and the differences now between the two. It appears that Avast might be the better choice given recent developments. Please correct me if I am in error.
FYI - the offline "Avast! Free" installer can be found here: https://support.avast.com/en-ww/article/Install-Free-Antivirus
I am shocked - but bot surprised. How so?
Three to five AVG modules are recognized as PuPs and removed by every better clean-up program I know and regularly use. Just yesterday I delivered an originally badly messed up computer back to a customer and showed the log files of above mentioned clean-up programs to the lady. AVG were numerically among the most numerous things that showed up. And that machine is no exception.
And to name names here: The clean-up programs I refer to are JRT, Adw-Cleaner and Malwarebytes Free.
I really take issue with even still writing about AVG - and then in a place like Gizmo's Freeware that so many people have over years learned to trust.
Anybody else sensing the slippery (down-)slope ahead?
I'll say what Rob and MC are too busy or too polite to say. YOU are wrong --loudly and undeservedly offensively wrong.
First, "Potentially Unwanted Programs" MAY BE just that, "potentially unwanted". Some 'security' programs flag other programs -- security-related and otherwise-- that THEY have unilaterally determined to be "potentially unwanted" only to alert the user who, then, can make his/her own decision whether the subject is "wanted" or not. For example, the Chrome browser extension offered with Avast!'s and AVG's installers IS WANTED by many users while NOT WANTED by others and, in any event, is prominently identified as "optional" by those installers. The user can choose for him/herSELF.
Second, One of your so-called "better clean-up program[s]", namely Malwarebytes (MWB), recently, itself, has become a "potentially unwanted program" that flags so very many useful, legitimate programs as PUPs or, even as malware, that I no longer treat its findings as reliable on-their-face. It appears that MWB intentionally flags competitors' products as PUPs or malware in an insidious marketing ploy to disadvantage them. And, to add insult to injury, since going commercial, MWB has gotten so much heavier-and-heavier on system resources that I, a life-time multiple-licensee, disable it except for the periodic scan whose results I have to go through with a fine-toothed comb.
In short, no one security program is better than all others in every instance and, therefore, should not be used as THE benchmark in always assessing all others.
Finally, to answer your polemical question: No, I do not sense any slippery, downward slope here at GIZMO's Place. I suspect almost no other fair-minded, well-informed and truly experienced computer user who finds his/her way here does either. Your assertion otherwise is just another one of those Probably Unwarranted Opinions littering the Internet.
Happy New Year, anyway.
Thanks rob,
It's been a few years since I last used AVG as my default anti virus.
For the past few years, I've been using Qihoo 360 and although it's quite good, I do get the odd false positive which is frustrating.
After reading your views on AVG rob,
I'm going to divorce Qihoo 360 and hop into bed with AVG for a fling..... yep, it's time for a change.
As for AVG being flagged as a nasty...... you don't get to stay in business for more than ten years as they have, if it's not good.
Been using Avast for several years and I'm really happy with it. Particularly the Root kit scanner. Downside is more and more pop ups.
Yes, I agree that Avast is a nice piece of free anti virus......... but, the constant pop-ups forced me to get rid of it last year.
I now use "360 security"...... it's free, it works well and definitely not intrusive, ie. no pop-ups and no adds. https://www.360totalsecurity.com/en/
If your going to recommend products from both Sophos and Avast Rob, I think you should provide the pros and cons comparison that we generally get for software that falls into the same category. It's the ability of Gizmos to assist users in sorting out similar products that really sets it apart from other freeware sites.
This will be done soon at Best Free Antivirus Software in the next major update.
Personally I removed Avast free from a friend's machine it was causing issues with their back up software even after adding these to Avast whitelist.
I have also lost count on how many untech end users have been fooled by its constant pop up asking you to buy it. They purchase the software while they could of been served just fine with the free version.
I also dont like the kitchen sink approach that the software has taken into adding tweaking software etc to the app. Stick with being an anti-virus software!
Long time Avast is my main choice and recommendation for family, friends and customers. Evaluating pros and cons, I think it is one of the best free antivirus.
A tip for the ones who are annoyed with pop ups: it's possible to configure Avast for showing pop ups for just 1 second.
I also recently removed Avast from my WinXP laptop. I was having problems with mini-freezes, sluggish behavior, and most recently, complete freezes before the full boot-up was finished. I narrowed it down to Avast (the freezing, that is), and replaced it with Comodo Antivirus (just the antivirus, not their Internet Suite), since I already had the Comodo Firewall installed.
The freezing was immediately gone, and now the system seems to startup, shutdown, and run a little faster.
The specs are:
Older Compaq Presario V2000Z Laptop with Windows XP
CPU: AMD Turion 64 ML-34 single core 1.58Ghz
Ram: Total Physical = 2GB, Total Available = 1GB
Avast did work just fine for many years on this laptop, although it probably did slow things down just a bit.
I presume one of the recent updates is what caused the problem (maybe one within the last several months).
I was looking for a free antivirus and Avast sounded promising.
Downloaded and start to install it on a fresh windows 10 machine, after all 275 megs were downloaded started to install the antivirus and after 30 minutes still trying...
I stopped the install only to find out that the program was installed (according to windows), it was working fine but I was worried about a defective install, so I tried to uninstall it, the choices it give me were REPAIR o CHANGE but not uninstall, neither one of those choices helped me to uninstall.
Finally downloaded Revo uninstaller and got the machine clean, downloaded PANDA and in a few minutes got everything working ok.
YMMV.
The free version of Avast does NOT include a firewall, but is blocking Windows Firewall from working because it is telling Windows that it is taking care of that.. I see no way to work around this so will uninstall Avast. This is a very nasty tactic to try to force you into buying the version with firewall. I also have a paid version with all bells and whistles on another more critical computer and will not be renewing my license because of this sneakiness.
Avast was bloatware on my computer. It also kept popping up with messages advertising their other products. I'm done with antiviruses. Using a firewall and common sense instead.
Pages