Talk:SUPER (computer program)

Dodgy Sofware

I have investigated the site and it seems to me that the very person who wrote it also wrote this wikipedia article. They use the same grammatical style. I would not trust their software. Their website lacks professionalism and they have not made their program open source. On their website they insist that their program is spyware free which makes me more concerned for the aforementioned reason.

Some antivirus software report back to the user that there is a trojan in this program, but it has been addressed by VideoHelp.com that this is a false positive. DaMoNZL (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings Regarding SUPER

I have noted quite a few misunderstandings about the nature of SUPER on this page. These include the seeming lack of copyright attributions to Apple Computer, RealNetworks, and Vivo Software, suspicions of its so-called "phone home" capability, and numerous mistakes of what the program even does. This I will correct as follows:

SUPER bundles with it the players and encoders of the FFmpeg, MEncoder, MPlayer, x264, mppenc, FFmpeg2theora & the theora/vorbis RealProducer plugIn projects. It does not in and of itself contain any codecs; it is simply a _front-end_ to these popular open source projects. SUPER includes copies of the licenses of all of these projects and does not appear to have modified their executables in any way. SUPER itself is not in violation of any copyrights or licenses. If a violation does exist, it is a fault of the projects that SUPER simply drives as a front-end. A credit screen exists in the program that provides a more detailed explanation. I will therefor note that SUPER is simply a front-end, and remove the erroneous copyright section.

Super does appear to phone-home. However, it is made clear on the SUPER website that this is an update check. Also, this website contains a discussion revealing that the program indeed does only appear to check for updates. Until further information is available, I will also remove this, as it seems to spread unneeded concern about what appears to be a useful and legitimate program.

Finally, the article repeatedly asserts that SUPER itself is a media player and encoder, with only a small note about its back-ends. This will be clarified. SUPER is a _front-end_ to several open source media players and encoders. The program itself repeatedly states this, and all operation of the program supports this. Without its back-end programs, SUPER can do absolutely nothing. I will more fully emphasize that SUPER only drives its back-ends.

For somthing that supposedly is meant to infect people's computer they sure make it damn hard to actually get it on my computer, I always waste lots of time trying to figure out the path thru the maze of links to actually download the latest version from there... --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This sentence sucks: "However doing so would cause malicious code to be executed on the user's machine, especially given the fact that SUPER requires to be run under full administrative credentials."... WOULD? shouldn't that be COULD? --98.119.173.96 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this article promotional?

I think that it not only is promotional but we should make a note that the program is not opensource and thus is possibly dodgy and unsafe. Kuroboushi 16:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used super before and it works (albeit with horrible compression rates sometimes). I'm not sure about the virus or adware thing though. But I do have adaware so..... Noian (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I work with SOPHOS (leader for Malware/Trojan/AntiVir and security protection) I have never found any supscious file in the SUPER(C) installation package. The last v2008.build.30 works great and renders excellent quality files. On a side note, I would like to comment that NOT being an opensource application does not imply at all being dodgy or unsafe as mentioned above.

This article is definitely not neutral. I don't know anything about the developers, but this article reads like it was modified by the developers or someone from their forums who doesn't speak English very well. It's pretty bad. Exarkun634 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This line is particularly poor for a Wikipedia article which should be neutral: "SUPER © "The Encoder" is the fastest and simplest tool to encode full length movies to any other format without any time or function limitation." 24.149.148.189 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)jw

Yes, definately reads promotional. After I edited the "Features" part, I saw in the history, that the one with IP 82.231.205.13 keeps adding it back in. Last time at 4 May 2008. Will check back on this article and maybe tell a mod if my changes are reverted. (WP should not have direct quotes from other sites, since it could violate copyright.) Also the edit before mine deleted a paragraph about techniques like phoning home or overwriting files, which I read elsewhere, reported by users. See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SUPER_%28software%29&diff=212072541&oldid=211860794 Makes this whole thing look questionable. 87.234.84.247 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I use this program regularly. It should be noted in the article that it does indeed attempt to connect to the internet on its own accord every time it is opened "phoning home" if you will, and that it also adds entries which it will not uninstall into the registry and c:/windows folder. Without that noted it reads as promotional even when written more neutrally. Resonanteye (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages

As far as I know SUPER is only available in english, not? --77.180.40.203 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ( de:DerErgaenzer)

Fair use rationale for Image:SUPER Logo.png

Image:SUPER Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SUPER screenshot.PNG

Image:SUPER screenshot.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SUPER.JPG

Image:SUPER.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request Article be flagged for Review

Article is definately not neutral, and is out of place for a wikipedia article.

NPOV tagging

I've removed the NPOV tag since it appears the article has been properly "neutralised" as concerns brought up in this page have been addressed in the article. Xieliwei (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure

"Super does appear to phone-home".
And so there is no reason that this behavior should not be disclosed.

"However, it is made clear on the SUPER website that this is an update check".
No. It is clearly claimed to be only an update check. It is at this time, however, only a claim. Unless eRightSoft releases the source for SUPER so that such a claim can verified then it remains an unverified claim.

"Until further information is available, I will also remove this, as it seems to spread unneeded concern about what appears to be a useful and legitimate program".
It should be up to the reader to decide for themselves whether or not they should be concerned. Attempts to remove this information from Wikipedia may themselves indicate reason for concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.16.85 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Rasay rewelra babe has added eRightSoft's unverified claim about update checking as fact but provided no verifiable independent reliable source reference to show that the claim is accurate. Rather than deleting the claim outright, I have edited the article to reflect that the claim is unverified. Please do not present unverified claims as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.234.3 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Puke

Wow, that is one UGLY website. SharkD (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Avira scanned SUPER found DR/Delphi.gen from Jan. 2, 2010 Update

My previous discussion post was deleted or disappeared. Apparently Avira does not like that DR/Delphi.gen. It probably is a false positive, but it (DR/Delphi.gen) seems to be constantly checking for something.

Paracite (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please update your AntiVir database. And please verify the info you are posting... Here's what AVIRA found in the latest v2010.build.37 of Jan 2, 2010 http://analysis.avira.com/samples/details.php?uniqueid=SVW9Z86wnWbJY33BqQfp7YyQSbEZt5QN&incidentid=422281 In fact every time a new release appears, AVIRA goes screaming then they release a fix after 24hours!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.197.26 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SUPER uses unconventional packers, is coded very suspiciously

The SUPER install package and several of it's internal programs make use of unconventional packer programs that are normally found to be used by malware.

For example, when scanned by various anti-virus software packages, the main executable (Super.exe - 833 kb) is catagorized as follows:

CAT-QuickHeal (Suspicious) - DNAScan ClamAV PUA.Packed.PECompact-1

Another executable (DXdump.exe - 16 kb) gives this: CAT-QuickHeal (Suspicious) - DNAScan ClamAV PUA.Packed.TeLock eSafe Suspicious File SUPERAntiSpyware Trojan.Downloader-Gen/Numerology

The file ffmpeg.exe gives this: ClamAV PUA.Packed.ASPack

When analyzed in more detail, the file DXdump.exe is found to be an tElock protected file, full of strange exceptions to thwart analysis which is strange considering it doesn't appear to do a lot. It's a command-line program which requires four arguments:

DXdump command file1 file2 code

Where "command" is the name of a program to run or other command to be passed to cmd.exe, the command interpreter. "file1" is the name of a file which is first deleted and if present and empty after "command" has been run is deleted. Purpose unknown but might be created by "command". "file2" is the name of a file which is first deleted and if present and empty after "command" has been run is deleted. It will contain any console output generated by "command". "code" is some kind of checksum for the arguments. If any arguments are missing or "code" is incorrect DXdump does nothing.

All in all, even if this software is not malicious, it is coded and packed as if it's hiding something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.95.218 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We Found Trojan Payloads During Installation

It has been several years since I've been active on Wikipedia, therefore I apologize in advance if I format a post incorrectly according to contemporary procedure.

On one of our lab systems one of my students was installing SUPER. I was previously familiar with the software and considered it relatively safe (as in free of malware.) While I observed, the SUPER installation process installed additional pieces of software on the system without any way to OPT-OUT. After some research on google, we found other users with similar experiences.

I speculate that it is a recent thing the developers have done, and for whatever reason, they have elected to use an installer that is full of other software payloads. I can and will be most accommodating to provide additional information on request to anyone that is interested. This is something that potential users should be aware of before trying the software.

Additionally, it is worth mention that the version with payload was obtained from the Official website on April 14, 2012 at around 9:30pm CST.

ColtsWalker (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations are original research and lack a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish this kind of material. Other people were in Wikipedia before, accusing other computer programs in a similar fashion; some of them were telling the truth but most just meant to disrepute the computer program. Therefore, we have little tolerance for such material. Fleet Command (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I call 'no bullshit'. I just tried converting a video with it an my AV killed it. I tried uploading from the official site and got flags again. I can understand why a volunteer freeware site may wish to subsidize and why they don't tell downloaders. If we can find an RS for this we should include it in the article. I did really like the program until my AV vaulted it. I then un-installed the rest and tried to re-download, but to no avail. I may send them an email and say 'wtf' type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

They are speaking the truth. Hidden in the Terms and Conditions is "Only the main GUI (Graphical User Interface) of SUPER © is written by eRightSoft. However, this installation package contains as well other executable files written by third parties. Some of these third party companies may recommend or provide advertisements about various services or may even download and install several other softwares or toolbars that replace your current browser's homepage and modify your default browser's search engine. Note that during the installation process your web browser might be launched to open and display some advertisements or related information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebesag (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Those findings are all FALSE POSITIVE, since 2005 we hear a lot about some mysterious virus in super, where are they? no one would tell. the big question is: if we assume super has a virus, how come it is hosted on softpedia, majorgeeks, brothersoft, afterdawn etc.. At the date of this post (June 25, 2012) super is ranked 40th at this site where it has been hosted for 6 years ! http://www.chip.de/Downloads-Download-Charts-Top-100-der-Woche_32368489.html Google for it and you'll find many similar links like this http://forum.bitdefender.com/index.php?showtopic=32466 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.202.146.28 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way they can fix it? I didn't like the confusing download site so I found the latest version elsewhere that had three opt-out boxes for stuff I didn't want. After install it did a 'phone home' thing, wanted a computer re-start and installed another thing I didn't want. I traced the .pif to is source and found the un-install.exe for it. It was some reg cleaner thingy. Windows XP didn't have it on its un-install list though. I do like the program and can see why some think it may be a little shady. Their download site is very confusing as to which is the actual program download and which other other downloads. Did you try install and run with AVG anti-virus active?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just installed version "v2013.build57 + Recorder (July 13, 2013)"

First step (after agreeing to install third party bits and pieces that may in turn install toolbars): an InstallPath Install Manager. Cancelling this gives the option to quit or continue, with a (already-ticked) box to "resume installation on next Windows startup". Quitting will launch a web page (http://www.installpath.com/thankyou-installation-interrupted.html). You can, after this, click Next (on the original Setup box) to install SUPER itself, as far as I can tell without any unwanted payload.

In short: very useful software let down by a VERY dodgy installer. Mspritch (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comments re: SUPER on Videohelp.com

Take a look at http://www.videohelp.com/tools/SUPER?nextcomments=25&orderby=#9750

It appears some aspects of the website have changed since then but this user's exchange doesn't inspire confidence in whoever it is behind SUPER.

Some highlights:

-At the time they had a Whois address listed 6614 Burton Dr. Louisville, KY that didn't seem to exist. What's listed now is a cryptic location GRN VALLEY ROAD AIN SAADE, METN 10001 Lebanon. Can you locate this road in Ain Saade, Lebanon?

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?k=ObEJOHw8O7X/X5w2zcakwbnRM93tJYx4pP01v6qFV0lQty9RclsWYKl9HhrxGsZa&domain=erightsoft.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

-They referenced their Norton Safe Web report. This applies to the website but does it address specific software? Their Norton Safeweb Report says the site location is France.

-The email addresses listed on the site were non-functional or disabled.

-The forum links on the site were non-functional or disabled.

-Avoidance of mentioning OpenCandy that was (is?) bundled with SUPER.

-The basically confrontational and illogical tone of whoever was at Erightsoft and their avoidance of addressing specific issues such as the presence of OpenCandy.

"...Likewise for emails, the forum is only open for those who have access. We decide whom, when, why and where, period All our email addresses are perfectly valid and fully running on very sophisticated servers. If WE NEED you: we let you in, otherwise you are systematically kicked out. We could grant you access in a second, But WE DO NOT need you or have any business with you..."

Keep in mind these are forum links and addresses they had publicly posted as avenues to contact them.

"...You are not our banker or lawyer or advertiser or publisher or of any usefulness to us. you won't get any information about our locations, offices, names, number of employees, phones, fax, Skype, twitter..."

All this is certainly ironic given what's on their "About Us".

Our Commitment

Our customers are our only assests, we continue to listen to our customers, to answer their inquiries related to our products or services...

Interestingly their "About Us" doesn't tell you anything about them.

Title?

SUPER (computer programme)? The standard accepted spelling in English for a computer program is without the 'me', which differentiates it from a TV programme. The English language adopted the US version of the word specifically for this purpose. In other variants and dialects of English, the word is spelled sans the trailing 'me'. So, basically, 'program' is correct in this context in English, and in English variants such as in the USA etc.

Can this page be renamed please?

SUPER (computer program)

--24.88.64.22 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This program installs literal malware

I've had SUPER for quite a few years, and I don't remember what its installer used to look like, but it was before they added a paid version. Anyway, my copy hadn't been updated in ages so I went to get the latest version. I noticed the warning that the free version is subsidized with shovelware like toolbars and junk, which I thought was really nice of them to let me know so I could choose Advanced Install and uncheck them. It turns out that was a red herring; it installed all kinds of crap anyway, and that crap started installing other crap, and so on like some kind of Russian nesting doll from hell. Among other things I caught before I literally pulled the plug, it was spawning tabs in Firefox every minute or so, plastering shortcuts to what looked like video games on my desktop, starting EXE files whose names consisted entirely of numbers (which started automatically when I rebooted), and redirecting all Google traffic to some Russian clone.

If I were to reproduce the install process on a throwaway computer (which I happen to have, conveniently) and document it in a YouTube video, would that be a valid source for radically overhauling the entry? I'd say it would be justification for not even linking to the official site. Octan (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Adware

I tried to install this software which now silently installs adware which then proceeds to install additional adware and malware some of which creates multiple versions of itself. 2.29.242.234 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved (closed by non-admin page mover) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

---

SUPER (computer programme) → SUPER (computer program) – In terms of computing, "program" is a correct spelling in all variants of English, especially UK and its Commonwealth members when they refer it were related to computer programming. The variant spelling "programme" is unknown if it used for computing purpose.(See Comparison of American and British English) 36.68.187.70 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support (as a British English speaker) per WP:COMMONALITY, the variant spelling "computer programme" is not "unknown" (see Google Ngrams), but certainly "computer program" is the WP:COMMONNAME in British English. cf. dialogue box. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Programme is typically only used for television programs, and even then it has fallen out of common usage, both in the UK and elsewhere. MrAureliusR_Talk! 05:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, after looking at the state of the page and the fact that a previous AfD was Delete, why is this page here? It failed notability once, nothing has changed since then... I think another AfD may be in order? It's highly likely that COI is an issue, as it seems those anon IPs were either the developers themselves or someone related to them. I need to check and see if the page was re-created by one of those IPs... Nope. An account named User:Sc7 created it. It was then deleted, and moved to userland for someone to improve it. They added only one source that may even be considered useful (from The Inquirer). As it stands now, the only actual reference is to Softpedia, which hardly makes it notable. I would seriously consider putting this up for AfD after the move discussion is complete. MrAureliusR_Talk! 05:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No, "programme" is the usual British spelling. A theatre programme, for example. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "Program" is the standard spelling on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 20:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.