Looks like that did the trick. Thanks.

In Bit Che's search results, the Name column for rows contributed by MiniNova is littered with things like <span class="s1">.

For an example, search for "daily show 09 04 20" and have a look at any of the MiniNova rows.

Don't know whether this began with an update of Bit Che's scripts or a change to the MiniNova user interface.

Is anyone working on / planning to work on this?

More recent comparisons of malware defense software:

PC Mag rates Norton Internet Security 2009 higher than any other malware defense suite (2-Feb-2009) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333448,00.asp
 
PCWorld rates Symantec Norton Internet Security 2009 higher than any other malware defense suite (22-Jan-2009) http://www.pcworld.com/article/158178/top_internet_security_suites.html

Mr. MinLo:

Here are just a few comments then I'll quit cluttering your forum:

[deleted text]

Like you, am no great fan of NAV but it seems that your assessment of it (“horrible”) is inconsistent with some well-respected authorities. ArsTechnica and AppScout rate it ahead of Kapersky and AVG and PCMag rates it ahead of those two and NOD32 as well. I’ve included some links to their evaluations, in case you’re interested. NAV is one of several that I use on various machines. It happened to be on the machine that I was runing Bit Che on.

[deleted text]

Cheers,
CS

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-report-little-known-av-packages-outdo-those-of-symantec-mcafee-microsoft.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2135092,00.asp
http://www.appscout.com/2007/06/antivirus_shootout_in_innsbruc.php

Mr. MinLo:

Here are just a few comments then I'll quit cluttering your forum:

Bit Che is a useful program and it seems to be generally well-done. Congratulations and thanks to the author. It is unfortunate that he’s not making any money from it.

NAV’s complaint about Bit Che is not with the package installer. The complaint is with c:\program files\bit che\bit_che.exe. The specific alert is "Suspicious.MH690". If you intend to do anything about it, that might be useful information.

I am encouraged to hear that Convivea may be pursuing a resolution to this problem beyond excluding Bit Che from the scrutiny of the virus defenses or replacing NAV with another anti-virus program. That is what I would have expected from a professional development organization and I (evidently mistakenly) believed that Convivea was just that, professionals rather than hobbyists. I’m a little surprised (but relieved) to learn that the recommended changes to the virus defenses are just a temporary work-around. I didn’t see any indication in the original post that any further effort was planned.

Like you, am no great fan of NAV but it seems that your assessment of it (“horrible”) is inconsistent with some well-respected authorities. ArsTechnica and AppScout rate it ahead of Kapersky and AVG and PCMag rates it ahead of those two and NOD32 as well. I’ve included some links to their evaluations, in case you’re interested. NAV is one of several that I use on various machines. It happened to be on the machine that I was runing Bit Che on.

I disagree with your contrast of “free” and “valuable”. Air, for example, is free, but, for those of us who breathe it, it’s pretty valuable. I found a $5 bill on the sidewalk the other day. It was free to pick up but it did have value. (Its value was exactly $5.)

It is very generous for Convivea to release the program as freeware, but I suggest that, even though it is free, it has considerable value. I assume that the author released it because he wants people to use it and people will use it when they perceive that it has value. When the program mysteriously stops working because the executable silently disappears (that’s what happens with NAV), I think that reduces its value. I, for one, didn’t consider the time it took to reinstall it several times a “minor inconvenience”.

And one last thing … my last post may have been arrogant or smug or snarky or even passive-aggressive, but it wasn't uneducated.

Cheers,
CS

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-report-little-known-av-packages-outdo-those-of-symantec-mcafee-microsoft.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2135092,00.asp
http://www.appscout.com/2007/06/antivirus_shootout_in_innsbruc.php

Software developers crack me up. Norton AntiVirus (rightly or wrongly) is accusing Bit Che of suspicious content / behavior and rendering Bit Che inoperative. What do the Bit Che folks do? Contact Symantec and take some initiative to get their product removed or exempted from whatever criteria are implicating it? Issue a patch release to Bit Che that doesn't exhibit the characteristics that raise NAV's suspicions?

No. They put the onus on the end-user 1) to figure out how to report a false-positive and 2) to figure out how to make Bit Che an exception (and that feature seem to be broken in NAV 16.2.0.7). And then they suggest that I discard NAV (which cost me money) and try some other anti-virus (one of which, Avast!, at some point in the past has identified Bit Che as a trojan.)

Since it comes pre-installed on so many PCs, I think NAV probably still has about 50% market share. By ignoring the problems associated with it, Convivea is drastically reducing the value of Bit Che to a fair chunk of its potential market. Is there any "adult supervision" at that company or do the developers just do whatever they like independent of the business implications?

It's a pity since Bit Che is still best of breed as near as I can tell. Has anyone found something else that does what Bit Che does but that doesn't look suspicious to NAV? Torrent Harvester seems to have just quietly died.