I haven't used Win 98 for years. There maybe a compatibility mode available when your right-click on the shortcut.

That sounds like an internet problem - "failed to connect"

S. Pupp, Agree with you. The program warned me about an external HD. It was down to 42%. I immediately made a backup. 3 days later it stopped working. Saved me a lot of jobs.

Saved more than one of my drives too!

Alexa, I am perfectly aware of everything you say, as i have been using software from your site for years, normally without issue. However today, this is not working. I stand by what i said earlier.
It is not the latest version anyway, so i will leave it. Thanks

frank, where does it say that I said it's a waste of time ? I was merely stating fact . And who says the Pope is infallible ?

frank, It wasn't Mark, it was me that said it was a waste of time.....credit where it's due!!

Mark Campbell, You have to read here: https://www.hdsentinel.com/rev_previous_versions.php

frank, Then it's time to expand your knowledge!

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kateg%C3%B3ria:Magyar_feltal%C3%A1l%C3%B3k

Clinton,

"... I mostly use it to see my drive temps in storage tray. If you own a M.2 drive something like this can be very handy."

FWIW... While it won't work for drives connected via USB, I find CPUID HWMonitor handier since it shows some system data as well. I've also used its drive tests on occasion & found them useful.

Jermin,

"... it is not easy task to disable Windows Defender on Windows 10. There is no more option to turn it off on settings. Windows 10 Pro users can use "gpedit" to disable it."

windowscentral[.]com/how-permanently-disable-windows-defender-windows-10

FWIW also check the running processes when Defender's turned off. It's been quite a while, but when I checked win10 ran another, lighter weight Windows security app/process instead. That's one of the things that prompted me to install 3rd party security software that could be turned on/off, but that solution won't work today with 1903 -- Defender will turn itself off when you have other security software installed, but now it will turn back on if that software is either not running or has not been updated.

Kjell, though all the anti-virus programs operate on the basis of data that they have collected from constant research over a period of time, that data need not be comprehensive. since thousands of programs (from all types of resources/sources) flood the software domain every day. In order to be effective and used extensively, the a-v programs adopt the principle of "guilty unless proved innocent" and that is the reason you get the warnings from those programs. The a-v programs themselves call these "false positives" .......... From whatever I have experienced, the downloads have not been prevented, but the installations have been. One method that I have used is to disable the a-v programs for 10 mins, download and install and re-enable the a-v. The a-v programs themselves have this feature of limited time non-deployment.... Your method of using the software only from the trusted sources is the best, but others are not that dangerous ....

Kjell, most software of this type has to hook into the operating system to function correctly. Malware does the same thing and if it manages to do so than it becomes a lot harder to detect and remove. For this reason several anti-malware programs absolutely reject virtually any program that attempt to do this regardless of reason. In generally it's not a good idea to do this but there is still options to see if it's safe beforehand.

You can always download said program to your computer (with anti-malware software running) than upload the program to virus total to see what they thing about it. Odds are if virus total says the software is clean than it is some antiviruses used can false positive a legitimate program from time to time tho. As long as you do not attempt to run an infected application it really doesn't offer much risk sitting on the drive.

It's only when the program has been launched (at least once) can it do any damage to the system short of a OS exploit where it can auto launch itself (or part of it) and pin itself into the bootloader so it launched on next reboot. This is extremely unlikely even for 99% of malware out there.

Kjell,

"I don’t like at all to disable the anti-virus program, though it has been necessary if you should download software from GOTD, and I don’t know why. Can someone tell me?"

1st, it Is Not Always necessary to turn off security software -- I've only had a problem with Defender once or twice, Never had a problem with McAfee, Never with Security Essentials in my win7 VMs, with BitDefender only rarely, & Never with the free version of Kaspersky I ran in a VM for a year. I run the free version of AVG in my XP Pro VM, and I have to turn off real time scanning there to install a GOTD in the wrapper, not because it won't work, but because it slows things down Far Too Much.

Why does some security software object? The methods employed by the GOTD wrapper are also employed by some malware. Windows itself, and all consumer security software make compromises for the sake of usability -- the better your security apparatus, the more inconvenient it is. Some security software presumably doesn't want to compromise when it comes to the GOTD wrapper. And the developers of some security software are no doubt too lazy to try to write code to try to tell the difference between the GOTD wrapper & malware. Then there's also Virus Total... many [most?] security software companies automatically add detection for any new malware uploaded to that database, because you always want the latest protection ASAP, and they only check out those new additions later on. I *think* that's why software like BitDefender occasionally will block the GOTD wrapper, but then will return to normal a day or so later.

Clinton,

" As long as you do not attempt to run an infected application it really doesn't offer much risk sitting on the drive."

I'd politely add: *Usually*. There have been cases where malware code runs because of the way Windows itself will look at or examine certain types of files, e.g. .zip files or images. They even figured out how to successfully run malware from emails that Did Not require those emails to be opened.

"... short of a OS exploit where it can auto launch itself (or part of it) and pin itself into the bootloader so it launched on next reboot. This is extremely unlikely even for 99% of malware out there."

Yes, it's less likely today, but not because it's difficult, but because there's so much low hanging fruit that many cybercriminals & would-be cybercriminals don't feel that they have to bother. There are actually more ways than ever before to ensure persistence [as it's called]. The latest frontier so-to-speak seems to be the sort of mini OS used by UEFI BIOS -- they found an early-on example of UEFI malware in the wild a while back, and they've likely only gotten better at it since.

Be Careful Out There.

Clinton,
>"short of a OS exploit where it can auto launch itself (or part of it)"

It is impossible for any program to auto launch itself; programs cannot think or make decisions on their own. That occurs only after they are loaded into a running state. The CPU then processes the steps in the program, which could then do lots of good or bad things. The main point is that a program has to be started by some other running program or the (already running) operating system.

I purchased the HDD Sentinel program several years ago. I am not aware of it hooking itself into the operating system in a manner that it cannot be uninstalled.

Kjell,

>"I don’t like at all to disable the anti-virus program, though it has been necessary if you should download software from GOTD, and I don’t know why. Can someone tell me?"

It isn't GOTD's fault. I have never had to disable my anti-virus program to install any program from GOTD, and I have successfully installed hundreds over the years. Some anti-virus software will view the setup used for most GOTD offers and block it. Most anti-virus software also have a method to allow programs you specify as safe, but very few people ever bother to go and make the change. Over the years, the same question you have asked has been asked by others. After learning they can alter their anti-virus settings, they have not had any more problems. Take a look and see if that will help you.

TK,
>"Gary, not strictly true there have been and will be many cases of remote code execution vulnerbilities including some that were designed in like the .WMF remote code exectuion vulnerability"

Yes, other than the user initiating a program to execute (via the OS, scheduler, or anything that causes the file to be processed by the CPU), there have been many different types of initiating a program to execute, from the early days of DOS and ASCII BOMBs (sending a text file to the screen could cause a program to start) to the e-mail attachment vulnerabilities we had just a few years ago (assessing (not accessing) the attachment could cause a vulnerability). Executables have been hidden in all types of files, and then a method was used to start the executable part (e.g., an image viewer displaying a photo, and the processing of displaying the photo triggers something being loaded into executable memory). Those sort of vulnerabilities get solved pretty quickly.

Steve Gibson's coverage of the Microsoft MICE issue was big news back in 2010 (I think)(before Vista). I have not found any machines in a long time that originally had it because any that did have all probably been patched. Later machines didn't have it because it was removed by Microsoft. Even the MICE issue required something else processing the meta file before it caused an execution.

The main point is that regardless of what type of file (standard executable/hidden/disguised. etc.) it is merely taking up space on disk (non active), and cannot start itself. Something else has to trigger the action that causes that file to be processed in some manner before it will execute or cause something else to execute.

TK,
You are pointing out more possibilities of vulnerabilities, and the ones you mention only skim the surface of what types of exploits that have been developed, ... but my initial comment has nothing to do with those possible vulnerabilities. I was responding to part of the comment made by Clinton, which contained the text:

>"short of a OS exploit where it can auto launch itself (or part of it)"

That part I quoted at the start of my comment. Had I thought of it, I would have shortened my quoted text back to him to:
>"... where it can auto launch itself ..."

The only part of that comment I was responding to is the part about a program/exploit auto launching itself. Nothing on the computer can auto launch itself, not even the OS. It needs the BIOS to initiate the OS. The BIOS needs the circuitry/logic to start it when power is applied.

Clinton's comment just above that line I quoted said essentially the same thing: "As long as you do not attempt to run an infected application it really doesn't offer much risk sitting on the drive."

The part of a program "auto loading itself" is what I wanted to clarify. That part of the comment seemed to contradict the statement he had just made. I think if Clinton thought about it, the sentence would be worded slightly different. Anyone that knows very much about how a computer works (and obviously Clinton does) knows that executable code has to started by something that is already executing, whether it be initiated by the user telling the OS to start it, a scheduler that the OS runs that will start it, or a remote execution that starts it. The main point is that it cannot start itself; some already executing code must initiate it. I am pretty sure that is what Clinton was intending to point out as well. It just seemed odd to use the "auto load itself" part. It makes it sound like a file could somehow spontaneously start itself. For anyone that might have thought that was possible, I just wanted to make that part clear.