Talk:CamStudio

Question
Has anyone actually used this? It probably should justify it's wikipedia article's existance, just a bit. Mathiastck 07:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a video for YouTube using the software and let me tell you, it works WAY better than HyperCam.--Axe995 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just downloaded it and gave it a go and was very impressed 194.83.140.28 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have Vista, and CamStudio works perfectly on it. In the article it says that it has to be in compatibility mode, which I don't run it in and it still works fine. Asofaihp (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm... WP:TALKPAGE? -- Yowuza ZX Wolfie  18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't think this article conforms to WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxed (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What portion of the article are you basing your NPOV comment?Wolfpackmars2 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got this software and both stable 2.0 or beta 2.5 are very unstable, crashes on attempt to change video settings, converting to SWF either crashes or never ends, and what is most important - output AVIs don't work both in VideoLan and Media Player Classic with K-like Codec Pack! I was trying to find a ticket/bug report but bug tracking system is closed/private. Wasted time on this software, have no idea who uses it. Sorry if this is offtopic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkeltem (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Onkeltem's comments are very helpful here, and I also believe he is the kind of person who expects $100,000 car performance out of a junker. This program is very handy for people who want to make simple videos without doing much fancy, and is free. You want to do anything beyond that, then pay up. Otherwise, take the BS elsewhere.

Possibly Viral
ArcaVir antivirus, via http://virusscan.jotti.org, is reporting the official, Sourceforge version of the executable as infected with the IRC backdoor, "Riskware.Virtool.Zombantiantivir" (http://www.viruspool.net/virus.cms?&id=770477). In the interest of preventing the spread of malware, I'm removing the links from this article for now. It is worth noting that none of the other 20 antivirus services detected anything, so this may be a false positive. ~ Eidako (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've opened a support ticket on the author's service desk, and another person has previously raised the issue on the SourceForge tracker (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1886523&group_id=131922&atid=722680). Given a lack of guidelines for this type of situation, my gut feeling is to leave the links out of the article until the author has responded. ~ Eidako (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not our job to censor link to the official website & SF because one AV program suddenly decides to report a program that were release a long time ago as containing virus/trojan/malware. KTC (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the 6th of june 2011 a link on the official web page, www.camstudio.org pointed towards a download on sourceforge http://mesh.dl.sourceforge.net/project/camstudios/ (note the extra s) containing the trojan "TrojanDownloader:Win32/Deewomz.A". The installation package downloaded was named CamStudio_Setup_v2.6b_r294_(build_24Oct2010).exe. The installation installed a false service named "Desktop Window Manager Sessions Manager". On windows 7 systems this service should be called "Desktop Window Manager Session Manager" (note the s in sessions). On windows XP this service should not exist at all. The installation also installed the file c:\windows\desktop manager\dwm.exe. This file should not malicious only exist in c:\windows\system32. The malicious file is locked by the service mentioned above and can not be removed conventionally with antivirus software unless the service is deactivated first.

It is uncertain wheter the trojan installed anything else in the system. A virus scan showed nothing after removing the service and the file.

"At the moment of writing (110726) the link on the web page is corrected and the project page on sourceforge is removed. How this all came to be is somewhat of a mystery, wheter the official page was hacked or what caused this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.28.212.76 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

McAffee Virus Scan Software still detects a trojan (Artemis!0FEA2B12900D) for the download of the official EXE-file from http://camstudio.org - I removed the link to that webpage and made a remark in the article Schneedrache (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can confirm this is still the case as of today. I downloaded the file straight from camstudio.org, and McAfee quarantined Artemis!935C478B6850. Vegemarmalade (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Camstudio definitely installs adware and other stuff that the user doesn't want. This really goes to show that Sourceforge, Wikipedia, CNET, and open source in general do not always work to expose the malicious software. Do not install. Sourceforge and CNET should shut down the Camstudio pages. 166.67.66.7 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, CamStudio does not contain any adware/malware, but its main installer does. The installer is made by WorldSetup (an adware company) and tries to install third parties applications. The CamStudio devs explained the reasons for that (http://camstudio.org/forum/discussion/1181/camstudio-2.7-is-coming-and-a-word-about-its-future), and said there will always be a way to opt-out during the installation. There also exists another installer which is not bundled with adware and can be downloaded from various websites like Softpedia. Teyut (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/15611846820c3eb828a7e1ec837f4747b3190e18bc84c45edddf3ac8d8145be9/analysis/1389568052/ ... camstudio is virus. stay away!--213.153.194.15 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Camstudio installs very dangerous trojan horse related to website omiga-plus search - it cannot be deselected during install and almost cannot be completely unistalled. Solution is to perform drive format and clean Windows install - trojan removal completely killed my system. 11:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.178.244.176 (talk)

I've downloaded it from the offical webpage today - VT is inconclusive (Even though most detections don't scream malware but Potentialy Unwanted Software and similar). After an installation where I desecltec everything but the actual program a GMER scan also was unable to detect anything suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.7.149 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lossless Codec
I have noted that the lossless Codec cannot be transcoded CORRECTLY (No color glitches, etc.) by other open source projects such as Handbrake. The issue has been reported to handbrake, but the moderators there say that the issue will most likely NEVER be resolved. (An example of the color issue with the codec can be found here. The support topic dealing with this can also be found here.) The ONLY transcoder that doesn't crash nor outputs glitchy output, is MediaCoder, which is no longer open source and infringes copyrights it seems. I know this should be on a forum (and it is, in several places), but lack of support for this issue is astonishing. We don't want to be uploading over 300+ MB Files to youtube that just error out, so why isn't there support for this on open source transcoders? (VideoLAN Crashes when trying to transcode) 68.185.166.207 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So... because the CamStudio Lossless codec isn't properly supported by Handbrake or VideoLAN it's broken in some way? That by itself is not a very good precedent to go by. In case you didn't know, for those 2 particular programs to be able to properly support a codec, that individual codec has to have support for it manually written into the program libraries by one of the developers, they don't use external libraries.  There's a ton of codecs that don't work properly (or at all) with them because of that. I myself have no problems processing CamStudio Lossless Codec video with VirtualDub and no more problems processing it with Windows Movie Maker then I've had with most other codecs. Also, 3 single posts by the same person to 3 separate forums don't make for a reliable reference. --Brandished (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising?
The last sentence says they are seeking developers. Isn't that advertising, and shouldn't we remove that? --Thekmc (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on CamStudio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327145108/http://www.adobe.com:80/devnet/logged_in/sfleischer_captivate.html to http://www.adobe.com/devnet/logged_in/sfleischer_captivate.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210140551/http://www.adobe.com:80/devnet/logged_in/sfleischer_captivate2.html to http://www.adobe.com/devnet/logged_in/sfleischer_captivate2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Still viral/adware despite claim from developer otherwise
I just edited the entry to clarify that the claims by the developer of having removed malware have not been independently verified. I know that we need independent sources, but I'm posting here on the talk page because I recently (July 2016) downloaded the program and got previously reported malware described and documented on reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr115 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify this was v2.7.4 Engr115 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been some debate as to the veracity of the VirusTotal link among editors- Namely, Codename Lisa has stated "I don't believe you" in regards to my edits to be verifiable. . archive.org's September 6, 2016 archive of camstudio.org and the links displayed on VirsuTotal, one will find that they are an identical match. Please do not revert my edit out of your own personal bias (most of your edits to this page question any post stating that CamStudio is a potential malware risk). Engr115 (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. :)


 * There are several things you need to know: First, per, any editor is allowed to revert a contribution and then engage in talking with the contributor. But you love reinstating your contribution without establishing a consensus first. That means I am probably wasting my time here. Are you ready to leave counter-reverting alone and discuss it like any other editor?


 * I have several objections to your contribution:


 * 1) On VirusTotal, out of 54 antivirus software in the test, 51 say it is clean. Why do you say it is otherwise?
 * 2) "If one compares the download links shown on [...]." There is nothing to show on which file this test has taken place. Nothing.
 * 3) Original research is forbidden in Wikipedia.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Frankly, interacting with you has been disappointing as a newcomer. I barely even know how to format this talk page properly (this took way too long to type up), and I have to deal with you questioning my personal intentions as an editor. Moreover, you warn me about an edit war and ask whether I'm ready to talk, despite the fact that I was the one who suggested we talk about the edits here. Perhaps I didn't approach the situation in a perfect manner, but again, I'd kindly suggest you take another look at WP:DNB; I've been reviewing guidelines (certainly haven't read all of them yet) and haven't seen anything I've really run amiss of in a manner that warrants the caustic nature of your edit comments (your contribution history is littered with similar snark beyond the two instances toward me quoted below):
 * "I don't believe you."
 * "I have seen this behavior before: An editor who keeps reinstating his contested edit has no interest in discussion in talk page."


 * In any case, I will answer your objections:


 * 1. I did not say otherwise. I said (em added) :
 * VirusTotal's scans of CamStudio's official download link and installer in August 2016 indicates potential malware. 
 * This statement is neutral, despite the fact that I am certain that the download links on camstudio.org contain malware based on my own experience removing the malware from my computer and the impartial evidence provided. Other security websites (found via google search through this past July) and individuals find the same issue (though it appears that sourceforge downloads may be ok).
 * 2. I take it that we agree on this one now?
 * 3. If you could explain how this is original research, it would be appreciated. I realize that something like a news article on the topic would be preferable, but given the dearth of articles right now, I am unsure how we benefit from excluding timely information about what seems to be an ongoing event. Can we tag somehow to indicate this? I hold that the statement (quoted above) in question is a statement of fact. VirusTotal's scans of Camstudio's official download link do indeed indicate potential malware. In any case, perhaps you could assist me in finding a better source given the download does indeed contain malware. I'm also a bit confused as to why you are contesting my links to VirusTotal and not the other two links to VirusTotal in the external links section. You made a similar reversion to an anonymous user's edit on the same topic in June.


 * Rather than continuing to debate whether the source is perfect, I suggest that we reinstate my edit, but include some sort of tag indicating that it would be nice to improve the source. (I don't know which one would be appropriate.) Otherwise, we may leave readers who are less knowledgeable about malware susceptible to downloading infected files. The way the article currently reads lends undue weight to the notion that the download is not harmful.


 * I look forward to hearing your feedback.


 * --Engr115 (talk)


 * Hello again, Engr115


 * I still disagree and I have nothing to add. If you wish to pursue the matter further, you may consult WP:DR.
 * But I will give an advice, which you can heed or ignore, however you wish: There are three things in Wikipedia that if you do, you will become a social leper. One is using profanities. Two is digging dirt on another editor. Three is responding a revert with another revert. You have so far done two of these.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey


 * Why are both of you focusing on one end of the situation? There is an intermediate ground. You can write on [date], CamStudio was sent for analysis to [service name]; out of 54 antivirus programs testing the binary, 51 said it is clean but [a], [b] and [c] said it is infected with [malware name]. According to their vendors [malware name] is [such-and-such] and does [such-and-such]." Now this is neutral.


 * Of course, I don't know what to say to the original research problem. I just don't know. I can't say it is original research and I can't say it is NOT original research. You need to get a third opinion on that. All I know is that antiviruses today nitpick on anything and everything. Their verdict should be taken with a grain of salt.


 *  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 11:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I like this suggestion. It's less succinct than I would prefer, but it might be more clear than just saying "indicates potential malware" like I had done. Probably worth noting that even more recent scans show that updated databases are detecting malware as well (e.g. Panda didn't detect it originally - see link above - but does now for the same download link)., what do you think? Can we still resolve this here or are you really done talking about it? I'd prefer not to go to WP:DR after minimal input on the talk page, but I will do that if you prefer.
 * Engr115 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. And thanks. This clearly does not address my OR angle but since you are making a compromise for me, it is only fair that I make a compromise for you. So, yes. And thanks again.
 * Sidenote: WP:DR isn't a place to go; it is exactly what just happened. Compromise is 50% of every dispute resolution.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of the update. Engr115 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on CamStudio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027094429/http://camstudio.org:80/blog/general/camstudio-25-beta-1-released to http://camstudio.org/blog/general/camstudio-25-beta-1-released

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned Reportage
Added section to keep some material from main page visible for future editors while avoiding OR Conflatuman (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In the Malicious Software section This edit from Nick Smith, the "caretaker" of CamStudio, "to finance future development, CamStudio has chosen to use an ad-supported installer offering other free software during the installation process. Regardless of what AV software is reporting, CamStudio unequivocally is *not* infected with a trojan or any other malicious software. It is possible that software offered via the installer could be triggering the alert, but CamStudio and the installer are both clean."

Comodo blocked "CamStudio_Setup_v2.7.2_r326_(build_19Oct2013).exe" from installing, stating that it had a "Application.Win32.InstallCore.BWAN@1" infection. Nick Smith suggested disabling Comodo. Later, "PC Utilities Pro – PC Optimizer Pro" was reportedly being installed and being run without people's permission. Systems were infected with the following: "PUP.Optional.Delta.A", "PUP.Optional.Spigot.A", "PUP.Optional.InstallCore.A", "Rogue.Multiple", "PUP.Optional.CrossRider.A".

At the beginning of 2015, CamStudio installation was still distributing a malicious software, though the prior uninfected installers could be obtained from SourceForge. The installer used by CamStudio also appeared to violate the conditions set forth in the first offer, not only changing all search engines and homepages to Yahoo - the stated actions - but installing a batch script to ensure that the homepages and search providers could never be set back.

If the research on the malware and viruses distributed with CamStudio were published in some public source - even a blog - another editor might meaningfully cite it. On wikipedia itself it is subject to WP:NOR. Alternatively if it is referring to some public source without citation, that source could be cited.

2020 OR cleanup
User:Rhododendrites cleaned up some elements on malicious software that I agree was WP:NOR. However it took out a fair bit of material which cited third party virus scans and forum posts. These aren't original research - they're cited material - so I have restored them. Conflatuman (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've restored material comprising 100% OR and/or unreliable sources. Running reports and including them here is somewhere between OR and just plain WP:UNDUE and forum posts fail WP:RS. If some reliable secondary source has reported on this, it should be summarized insofar as that source covers it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see follow why linking a third-party virus scanner is original research or undue weight. As for forum posts, that is indeed something to use with care, but the context is important, and the page isn't trying to explain the US constitution via a reddit post. A software product of moderate profile doesn't get much coverage in the Times of India, and there is no Journal of CamStudio Studies. The forum linked by another editor is the official one, hosted by the developers of the software, somewhere where the developers often interact, and is the channel for announcements by the developers. That makes it closest to "sources on themselves" and fits all five points under that subheading on WP:UNDUE. The other information on the page is very close to marketing material straight from the creators; the cited malware problems comprise an important, more critical, source of information.
 * A virus scanner, if initiated by a Wikipedia editor is original research, and if not initiated by a Wikipedian carries no weight. But yes you have identified a problem with writing articles about subjects that are not notable or barely notable (notability is more or less defined by how much reliable independent secondary coverage something receives). Forums are not acceptable sources, as they are user-generated content. Developers saying something about their own software is better than a virus scan or a forum post but still doesn't carry much weight apart from settling the most basic facts because they're obviously not an independent source and relying on the subject itself makes for promotional articles. If we had real secondary coverage of this aspect of the subject first, then it might be ok to include what the developers said in response, but we typically wouldn't want to include material from the developers without someone else first determining it was an important part of the subject. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)