Windows Users using Apple's QuickTime (gopro studio) At Risk!!

[Jake J]

Fellow Solo and Go Pro owners! Apple is no longer supporting quicktime on windows machines with security updates!

So if you use Go Pro studio (or even have it installed on your machine) then you also have quicktime, as go pro studio requires it.

This only applies to those of us running windows, this does not affect mac users. If you don't want to have a gaping security hole on your windows machine then you should uninstall quicktime. And unfortunately most likely need to find an alternative to Go Pro Studio.

Here are a few links concerning the matter. The last link is instructions on how to uninstall quicktime, I hope this info is useful for someone!! It is for me because I am an IT guy that is very conscious about info sec.


US Government recommends Windows users to uninstall QuickTime on their PCs - MSPoweruser

Apple stops patching QuickTime for Windows despite 2 active vulnerabilities

You Need to Uninstall Windows QuickTime Now: Here's How

 

[Solo Keith]

I'm running Bootcamp on Mac but don't have QuickTime running on Windows partition. But am using QuickTime w/iOS. I'll look further into this. thanks for the info @Jake J

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Fellow Solo and Go Pro owners! Apple is no longer supporting quicktime on windows machines with security updates!

So if you use Go Pro studio (or even have it installed on your machine) then you also have quicktime, as go pro studio requires it.

This only applies to those of us running windows, this does not affect mac users. If you don't want to have a gaping security hole on your windows machine then you should uninstall quicktime. And unfortunately most likely need to find an alternative to Go Pro Studio.

Here are a few links concerning the matter. The last link is instructions on how to uninstall quicktime, I hope this info is useful for someone!! It is for me because I am an IT guy that is very conscious about info sec.


US Government recommends Windows users to uninstall QuickTime on their PCs - MSPoweruser

Apple stops patching QuickTime for Windows despite 2 active vulnerabilities

You Need to Uninstall Windows QuickTime Now: Here's How

This isn't nearly the issue it's being made out to be; the video industry alone (gov't as well) requires QT packaging. It's a topic here at NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and it won't be surprising if Apple will be governmentally required to allow third parties to decode QT packages. Too many public objects require QT, and Apple may find themselves in a nasty financial situation for this very dumb, self-serving action.

Either way, the correct answer is to be vigilant about being online, knowing what's running when, or isolating your editing machine from being online capable.

Users should be aware that uninstalling QT will mean that your system will no longer be able to decode .mov files. This will not in any way affect ability to decode .mp4 files if you're using a branded NLE such as Vegas, Premiere, Edius. If you're using Avid, it will affect your ability, but there are converter tools available.

In short, don't panic. Uninstall QT if you're concerned, or be sure you have it locked off until you need it. Inconvenient, but still a very useful (necessary in my world) tool. Given that the government themselves use QT for archiving J2K formats and other video/photo/animation formats...something will happen with this selfish move sooner than later. Apple can't force the government nor enterprise to use their software, and QT is considered a commodity.

Sweet of them to forget who funded the format anyway, and gave them the backbone (for free) that allowed the format to grow (Microsoft).

 

[Jake J]

I agree that there is no need to panic. Knowledge is power and knowing that Apple will no longer supplying security patch updates to windows users is all the info I need to no longer use quicktime as part of my digital toolbox. There are other applications that I can use that will patch their application when vulnerabilities are exposed.

The fact that no KNOWN attacks have resulted so far due to the vulnerabilities does not comfort me. Bad actors will find a way to exploit these vulnerabilities in quicktime in a myriad of sneaky ways so that even an innocent link to a video has the potential to create a backdoor into windows machines, and I try to leave as many backdoors that I know about shut.

@EyeWingsuit I use Handbrake to decode .mov files. I am not a professional video editor by any means, but aren't there any third party applications (like handbrake) that we can use when dealing with .mov files?

 

[Jake J]

This isn't nearly the issue it's being made out to be; the video industry alone (gov't as well) requires QT packaging. It's a topic here at NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and it won't be surprising if Apple will be governmentally required to allow third parties to decode QT packages. Too many public objects require QT, and Apple may find themselves in a nasty financial situation for this very dumb, self-serving action.

Either way, the correct answer is to be vigilant about being online, knowing what's running when, or isolating your editing machine from being online capable.

Users should be aware that uninstalling QT will mean that your system will no longer be able to decode .mov files. This will not in any way affect ability to decode .mp4 files if you're using a branded NLE such as Vegas, Premiere, Edius. If you're using Avid, it will affect your ability, but there are converter tools available.

In short, don't panic. Uninstall QT if you're concerned, or be sure you have it locked off until you need it. Inconvenient, but still a very useful (necessary in my world) tool. Given that the government themselves use QT for archiving J2K formats and other video/photo/animation formats...something will happen with this selfish move sooner than later. Apple can't force the government nor enterprise to use their software, and QT is considered a commodity.

Sweet of them to forget who funded the format anyway, and gave them the backbone (for free) that allowed the format to grow (Microsoft).

@EyeWingsuit makes very good points. Thank you for the info about QT, I hope you are right about the government requiring apple to allow third parties to decode QT packages, but I think we have all seen what happens when the government tries to make apple do things. LOL.

**Apple no longer supporting QT on windows** While I agree that this should not cause wisespread panic, it is still a very big deal. If this continues to be the case, using QT on windows will eventually become so outdated and full of vulnerabilities that it won't be practical or safe to use. Due to the popularity and the widespread integration of QT packages (like @EyeWingsuit previously said) it just doesn't make much sense why apple would do this?

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I agree that there is no need to panic. Knowledge is power and knowing that Apple will no longer supplying security patch updates to windows users is all the info I need to no longer use quicktime as part of my digital toolbox. There are other applications that I can use that will patch their application when vulnerabilities are exposed.

The fact that no KNOWN attacks have resulted so far due to the vulnerabilities does not comfort me. Bad actors will find a way to exploit these vulnerabilities in quicktime in a myriad of sneaky ways so that even an innocent link to a video has the potential to create a backdoor into windows machines, and I try to leave as many backdoors that I know about shut.

@EyeWingsuit I use Handbrake to decode .mov files. I am not a professional video editor by any means, but aren't there any third party applications (like handbrake) that we can use when dealing with .mov files?

Handbrake is using a licensed QT decoder as well (Apple doesn't let anyone create a new decoder). Premiere, Vegas, Edius, and even Media Composer (Bottom-end Avid) all use QT as the decoding engine.

Apple is attempting to force yet another group of the world's computer users to use their product. It reeks of Standard Oil all over again; I wonder if whomever is the new president of the US will have the courage to take on these monopolies.

Currently, Softonic and QuickAlternative are the only tools I'm aware of. Neither are very good, neither can open the myriad codecs that a QT container can hold.

 

[PdxSteve]

What about MKV as a container?

 

[EyeWingsuit]

What about MKV as a container?

Matroska is a delivery container, and will likely never be an acquisition/editing container. It's used primarily by pirates; torrent sites are about the only place they're seen. Google/VP9 lost that battle long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. There isn't a camera on the planet, nor a camera manufacturer on the planet that would ever consider packaging .mkv.

Great theory, but not gonna happen. Most importantly, .mkv can't contain the metadata a pro shooter/editor needs; Quicktime has been wonderful for that. A bunch of the Post Production World Conference crew were discussing the topic this afternoon; it's either a place where someone can really take advantage of Apple's decision, or else Apple will be forced to release it as a commoditized product, or perhaps both. Until today, I was unaware that the LOC archives are wrapped in .mov format, and that alone will piss off some Congressman who hates Cupertino.

 

[PdxSteve]

Great info. I know very little about this and don't have the depth of this that you do. I just knew mkv was an open source container format but nothing beyond that. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Maybe Apple is striking back at the Gov't for not telling them how they broke into their (in)secure os lol, or that the gov't is renewing several million copies of windows 10 over their computers.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Maybe Apple is striking back at the Gov't for not telling them how they broke into their (in)secure os lol, or that the gov't is renewing several million copies of windows 10 over their computers.

I don't know they'd be so petty, but then again... maybe they are. I'd not mind seeing Apple taken down a notch.

Matroska/mkv, was a "big" google push when they bought the technology, and then Nokia claimed they owned it.
Who knows...maybe they'll resurrect it now.
WebM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eurositi]

Matroska is a delivery container, and will likely never be an acquisition/editing container. It's used primarily by pirates; torrent sites are about the only place they're seen. Google/VP9 lost that battle long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. [...] Most importantly, .mkv can't contain the metadata a pro shooter/editor needs;

Did you look up any information or do any testing, before you presented this nonsense as factual information?
- Matroska is NOT restricted to delivery formats
- It's the only format that will let you store any content (format) without re-encoding it
- Google's VP9 (with Opus audio) offers an excellent (and completely free) alternative to the heavily patented H.265/HEVC container. VP10 is already under development, and it is THE non-commercial delivery format for 4K+ video, notably on YouTube.
- Windows 10 offera native support for MKV contained video (assuming that it contains any modern encoding format)
- MKV can contain any metadata format you need to store in it. It just doesn't have a fixed format for it (like XMP). That's actually useful, if you need a format for historical recordings, as standard metadata formats aren't designed for cultural heritage needs.

Matroska is a completely un-restricted media container in terms of which video and audio formats it can contain. That means it can contain any lossless editing format your encoding software supports. Not a single other media container - including MOV - can do that (maybe MXF can, but it's specification is buried behind a big paywall). Therefore, MKV is actually being used as a storage format at professional archival institutions with FFV1 lossless video and LPCM (or FLAC) audio.

So just because Apple and Adobe don't like open media formats and stubbonrly refuse to support it in their editing software by labeling superior formats as "evil pirate formats", it doesn't mean they're technically inferior in any way. Quite the contrary, actually. You would notice if you actually bothered to try them out.
Comparison of video container formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Did you look up any information or do any testing, before you presented this nonsense as factual information?
- Matroska is NOT restricted to delivery formats
- It's the only format that will let you store any content (format) without re-encoding it
- Google's VP9 (with Opus audio) offers an excellent (and completely free) alternative to the heavily patented H.265/HEVC container. VP10 is already under development, and it is THE non-commercial delivery format for 4K+ video, notably on YouTube.
- Windows 10 offera native support for MKV contained video (assuming that it contains any modern encoding format)
- MKV can contain any metadata format you need to store in it. It just doesn't have a fixed format for it (like XMP). That's actually useful, if you need a format for historical recordings, as standard metadata formats aren't designed for cultural heritage needs.

Matroska is a completely un-restricted media container in terms of which video and audio formats it can contain. That means it can contain any lossless editing format your encoding software supports. Not a single other media container - including MOV - can do that (maybe MXF can, but it's specification is buried behind a big paywall). Therefore, MKV is actually being used as a storage format at professional archival institutions with FFV1 lossless video and LPCM (or FLAC) audio.

So just because Apple and Adobe don't like open media formats and stubbonrly refuse to support it in their editing software by labeling superior formats as "evil pirate formats", it doesn't mean they're technically inferior in any way. Quite the contrary, actually. You would notice if you actually bothered to try them out.
Comparison of video container formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re-read my post. Matroska is not designed as an EDITING format, and never will be. I didn't say it was RESTRICTED from being an editing format, but that it was never INTENDED to be an editing format. Additionally, it was never intended as an ACQUISITION format. No camera manufacturer would support the non-standard metadata system for Matroska formats. We'll likely never seen Mformats in any broadcast, production, nor finishing house as any pre-delivery format.

Read your own post; your own words demonstrate exactly what I said. Turn down the emotional rhetoric and comprehend before flying off the Enter key. These same emotional responses echo DivX from the last decade. And the same responses from me and other professionals held true. DivX remained relegated predominantly a pirate delivery format, and eventually died. It never made it into mainstream use any more than Mformats will.

The Ford Mustang is frequently used by backyard racing competitors. Ergo, it's a race car. But you'll likely never see a Ford Mustang on the course at Indy. It's not restricted from being there, but it also wasn't designed to be there. Only a fool or an ignoramus would attempt to take one there with any hope of a reasonable outcome.

BTW, you might want to read at least one of my books on codecs, attend one of my NAB Broadcasting sessions, or at the least, read before going off into defensive-land. I've tried, tested, sat on the boards of, and been evaluating codecs likely since before you were a glimmer in your daddy's eye.

Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is intellect.

 

[eurositi]

re-read my post. Matroska is not designed as an EDITING format, and never will be. I didn't say it was RESTRICTED from being an editing format, but that it was never INTENDED to be an editing format. Additionally, it was never intended as an ACQUISITION format. No camera manufacturer would support the non-standard metadata system for Matroska formats. We'll likely never seen Mformats in any broadcast, production, nor finishing house as any pre-delivery format.

Read your own post; your own words demonstrate exactly what I said. Turn down the emotional rhetoric and comprehend before flying off the Enter key. These same emotional responses echo DivX from the last decade. And the same responses from me and other professionals held true. DivX remained relegated predominantly a pirate delivery format, and eventually died. It never made it into mainstream use any more than Mformats will.

The Ford Mustang is frequently used by backyard racing competitors. Ergo, it's a race car. But you'll likely never see a Ford Mustang on the course at Indy. It's not restricted from being there, but it also wasn't designed to be there. Only a fool or an ignoramus would attempt to take one there with any hope of a reasonable outcome.

BTW, you might want to read at least one of my books on codecs, attend one of my NAB Broadcasting sessions, or at the least, read before going off into defensive-land. I've tried, tested, sat on the boards of, and been evaluating codecs likely since before you were a glimmer in your daddy's eye.

Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is intellect.

Point taken. Now I humbly ask you, if you can enlighten me (because you haven't actually said anything specific yet about the architectural differences between the MOV and MKV containers that makes the latter unfit for editing purposes?

All else being equal (so please rule out software support or metadata standards), what makes the MKV container less useful (Slower? Less accurate? Chunk/segment structures?) than MOV, if you put the exact same video stream into the two containers?

By the way: The only video format that is "owned" by Google is the royalty-free, open video format VPx (currently VP9) used on YouTube. Matroska (MKV) is by no means technically comparable to DivX just because it's being used by film pirates. Please be serious and less judgmental yourself, if you expect the same from others.

 

[SPP]

So if you use Go Pro studio (or even have it installed on your machine) then you also have quicktime, as go pro studio requires it.

Nope, you can delete QT in PC/Windows, as long as you dont use MOV and only AVI for Cineform CFHD output in GP Studio... its OK.

I am speaking from a GoPro camera point of view. I edit with Vegas Pro, but use protune all the time if for underwater with my GoPro, only for color correction.