MajorGeeks

Any topic that does not fit into the other categories.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

MajorGeeks

#1 Post by smaragdus » Tue May 10, 2016 5:19 pm

Qmmp description:
Qmmp - 2016-05-11.png
Qmmp - 2016-05-11.png (3.45 KiB) Viewed 6018 times
Qmmp description at MajorGeeks:
Qmmp - MajorGeeks - 2016-05-11.png
Qmmp - MajorGeeks - 2016-05-11.png (2.15 KiB) Viewed 6018 times
My removed comment:
Qmmp - my comment - 2016-05-11.png
I get the impression that MajorGeeks is run by a bunch of idiots (or perhaps a single idiot)- not only they didn't correct their 100% erroneous description of Qmmp but they also deleted my comment.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7924
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: MajorGeeks

#2 Post by webfork » Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:10 pm

I've run into that on a lot of sites. It's really arbitrary and frustrating.
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7924
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: MajorGeeks

#3 Post by webfork » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:33 pm

They have a disclaimer in the comments about how "pointing out listing errors will be deleted" and require that you email them. What an odd policy, especially as two people are asking very legitimate questions about the program but efforts to answer them are somehow against policy? What a bizarre and contradictory system.

So many questions:
  • Why delete the messages but ignore the content? What if it was listing Audacity as a star chart program?
  • Where did they get a "Quicktime" requirement in the first place?
  • I've got to give them my email address to get them to stop doing something stupid? How many people actually email them about issues?
  • [Maybe most importantly] How many errors are up on Majorgeeks because of this?
This whole episode was disappointing, though I'll admit not really using Majorgeeks that often. I actually like the color scheme but find the interface a bit cluttered.

I emailed the included address and that appeared to finally work.
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: MajorGeeks injects archives

#4 Post by smaragdus » Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:39 pm

I noticed that MajorGeeks injected "Visit Majorgeeks.com" link into SIV archive (siv.zip):

File information about System Information Viewer version 5.14 downloaded from FileCroco (official mirror):
Name: siv.zip
File Size: 5931707 Byte(s) (5.66 MB)
MD5: 3cddead5b466c44e2289fe783dba45c3
SHA1: 8c0c87b8905253d8976ada672fded066867f80f4
SHA256: 701305e480cef280ac0dc5c9865235cdcdf701d1f860cdd1fffc934dc82fdfb8
CRC32: 76c35c54
VirusTotal analysis - Detection ratio: 0 / 55

File information about System Information Viewer version 5.14 downloaded from :
Name: siv.zip
File Size: 5932158 Byte(s) (5.66 MB)
MD5: 9fee5e7c3031f0ffa0beec8ab2eb9d7c
SHA1: 1edea2899f399fd8f0253750387d1b913ab7aff3
SHA256: 7fa3cb7b335e5c50b1862a4b7225a474e77a09939a1746378a1d46e7049d46d7
CRC32: eb97cdca
VirusTotal analysis - Detection ratio: 0 / 55

This link injection may seem innocuous but for me it is not. I can no longer trust MajorGeeks as a download source.

Most likely Softpedia got System Information Viewer version 5.14 from MajorGeeks- they offer for download the same archive with the same "Visit Majorgeeks.com" link and it seems that they did not bother to check the archive.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7924
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: MajorGeeks

#5 Post by webfork » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:38 pm

Interesting. Additionally, I'm getting a malware warning from the Softpedia download that is not triggered from the home page.

Image

(From Firefox)
This link injection may seem innocuous but for me it is not.
I can't find a license with a "no-modify" clause that would make link injection a license violation but the malware warning would seem to suggest that program modification throws the program into a sort of "danger" list, which is bad for everyone.

Thank goodness for the prevalence of hashes and the 100s of different checking programs.
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

Specular
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: MajorGeeks

#6 Post by Specular » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:17 pm

I've never trusted MG. The pages I've seen don't make it clear where to find the original site of a piece of software they offer for download.

Special
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:22 am

Re: MajorGeeks

#7 Post by Special » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:12 am

MajorGeek has a lot of stuff but should be used as a news-feed only type site IMO, and use an ad-blocker for Christ sake, they have many times served up bad ad's that have caused some Antivirus's to go off, I don't really trust them.

Their descriptions are pretty bad as well, I remember their description for Flash (I know it terrible, but still be professional) it went something like "Flash is a lightweight lol..."

MajorGeek's would be better if they clearly listed the changelogs for the updates, much like here. :P

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: MajorIdiots

#8 Post by smaragdus » Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:54 am

When I post a useful comment trying to help users my comment gets deleted:

Image

I will not waste my time on MajorIdiots website

Post Reply