VirtualDub + some codecs, all portable "pack"

[bulgom]

.
Hi

I grouped VirtualDub + a few free codecs, to a portable "pack" — tested OK under Win. XP 32-bits and Win. 7 64-bits. See attachment.

Why? In some cases, you cannot install anything, nor modify Windows registry.

When?.. When I was asked by office workers if editing there, at the office, would be possible, using VirtualDub — and knowing the administrator did not accept the least installation, unless by himself.

The attached portable "pack" does not modify Windows registry.

Info.: ... while, by default, VirtualDub, though it requires no "classic" install but a simple decompression of the archive you download from Avery Lee's site, writes to the registry. So does any codec installation.

Why not AviDemux, then — since it's 100% autonomous, i.e. exploiting its own included codecs? Because it does not allow adding any filter; while VirtualDub, being a non-autonomous tool, lets you add as many as you want (or find: here, for instance).

At first sight, the problem was of course the codecs. But, in fact, several can be made portable, or be used "portably (virtualized)", along, quite simply.

I didn't append to this post, which asks the same question: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/367386-is-there-a-way-to-have-virtualdub-with-all-t...codec-portable as it's dated Sept. 25th, 2014...

OK, I did not include "all~~the~codecs "; again: just a few.

____________________________________________

NO: these "packs" contain NO malware(s) whatsoever!


edit Nov. 21st, 2015 · Not only spywared stuff is systematically banned from my PCs etc., I wouldn't be able to prepare / program anything of that sort anyway — even if I (ever!) wanted to!

Both ".7z" archives have been tested against "virustotal.com". The 1st one was reported to contain """3 malwares""" — which ARE obviously false positives. Packed to portable software is almost always considered as malware... I still wanted to get rid of those absurd alarms + needed to tidy up the "pack" anyway:

the 2nd archive is... the same (just added an html bitrate calculator), with no, or at least: less, of the useless files I had left in #1. And without the (batches-to-).exe launchers that "virustotal.com" beeped about. However, it still reports """2 malwares""".

Note (for fun...) · as I was testing the contents (file by file, since the site doesn't indicate WHICH files are """faulty""", within a whole archive), one, out of their collection of about 50 antivirus softwares, named "Qihoo 360", reported "rundll32.exe" as a """malware""" (!) — & that, only once I packed it, to test what was "going on"... "rundll32.exe" is nothing but one of Windows XP basic / very ususal components.

So, after "investigating" — for one whole minute — on that crook, here's what some tech news page reports (in its turn) about it: "Qihoo 360 caught cheating in antivirus testing"...

[Baldrick]

Looks good.

I tested the 7z file with virustotal: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/446224843a28fac857282ab9394561ab78de079eeba6e24ca5b...3e2f/analysis/
I guess they are 3 false positives as they reporting different results.

[bulgom]

.
Hi Baldrick

Thank you for the test.
I now have to find what exactly: which file(s?), causes that warning.

I don't remember of anything, "virtualized" using "JauntePE" * (the tool I used), becoming suspicious — while softwares processed by "VMWare Thinapp" are sometimes reported as such.

* I used "JauntePE": 1. it does not compress anything 2. AND it leaves all components (folders, files) accessible — which is essential in the case of "VirtualDub", as we (of course) need to add or delete its ".vdf filters" any time / very simply.

_______________________________

edit Nov. 21st, 2015 [B]·[/B] OK: now I know which files mosty alert "virustotal.com": the (batch-to-).exe launchers, within the "pack".

Now, a "good question": why SOME, only, of thosee .exe launchers, and not all of them ?! — knowing they are all the same, except for the executable they point to...

So, I used the ones that didn't beep "virustotal.com", to re-build the other ones — just modifying their targets.

And now, two, out of ~54 running antiviruses, still warn... as... some bad joke, since one of the """alerts""" concerns: "rundll32.exe", which is one of the most ordinary Windows XP files (that I included, to replace two .exe launchers).

[Baldrick]

I just tested the 7z file. It does not report which files.

[bulgom]

.
Thank you.
Right:
online "VirusTotal" does not tell which files are """problematic""". So: not easy to solve! I'm sending different versions to it...

I suspect the launchers (.exe) that "JauntePE" creates, to cause the false positive warning. Among other stuff, I just had "VirusTotal" analyse the virtualizing tool itself: "JauntePE"... Result: nothing wrong.


_______________________________

edit Nov. 21st, 2015 · So: the .exe launchers, as I suspected. Except that they contain absolutely NO malware. See my previous posts Nov. 21st 2015 edits.

[El Heggunte]

.
Thank you.
Right:
online "VirusTotal" does not tell either which files are problematic. So: not easy to solve! I'm sending different versions to it...

I suspect the launchers (.exe) that "JauntePE" creates, to cause the false positive warning. Among other stuff, I just had "VirusTotal" analyse the virtualizing tool itself: "JauntePE"... Result: nothing wrong.

Those "portable executable archives" are also used by some 'random pirates'.
That's the reason why the anti-virus are designed to return false positives against those packages...