Yes, though there are others too. I use it just out of familiarity, there are probably a dozen ways to do the same things.

If you Google Irfanview and download, you'll wind up at the CNET site. It's safe, click the download icon at the top and be careful to uncheck any boxes of extraneous stuff that may appear along the way.

I've used Irfanview for many, many years and love it because it is so easy to use to resize pictures.

Someone at the LandzDown forum told me that the best place to download was from the program's site and that Cnet could be a potential problems. I've gotten a lot of very good advice from thr great people at LandzDown.

Thanks to all of you for letting me know it's still a good program. I'll be downloading it in the next few days.

Shirley

Irfanview Home Page

Another "Yes" for Irfanview. I've been using it for years.

Mare, Cnet is owned by CBS. No worries. But with any download, it's important to be watchful to deselect any extraneous or unwanted "options" that may be piggybacked.

If you click on download on the Irfan page, you'll be redirected to Cnet. Can't imagine why you were given such incorrect info.

Generally speaking, if you can download software from the website that makes it, such as via the link TulsaRose provides above, it is less likely to install additional unwanted programs, add-ons and malware than if you go to some generic software download site. CNET which Snidely mentions used to be considered safe and reliable, but over the past few years they have adopted questionable practices, and regularly give you more than you ask for. (and not in a good way)

I think it is possible to navigate through their site, and carefully decline all the extraneous stuff, and end up with what you want, but their policy of giving you things you don't want by default, unless you specifically opt out, makes them, in my opinion, a site to avoid.

This site describes some of their questionable practices:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/510527/cnet-and-malware/

Those people at LandzDown really seem to know what they're talking about. I just remember that I was having computer issues and reporting to someone there that I downloaded a program from Cnet. They advised against it in the future. This happened a couple of yrs ago. Maybe something has changed.

I see now that the Irfanview site merely provides links to other download sites including the CNET one. So perhaps use them but read the dialogs carefully to avoid unwanted stuff.

Hmmm. I just downloaded from CNET by clicking the big green download button, and seem to have received only the irfanview setup program, and never saw an opt out offer of additional software. So maybe they've stopped that practice.

I also found that by going to the other download sites at the bottom of the Irfanview download page, there is a link to download directly from them.

I've always trusted CNET. I love Irfanview for resizing and Picasa for photo editing. Someone told me that I could resize from Picasa, but I just didn't find it as easy as using CNTL + R to resize like I do in Irfanview.

Yes, I too have always trusted Cnet and have never had a problem. Never.

Bob, your "source" is an anonymous forum posting that's 3 years old. That may be authoritative enough for you, it isn't for me. Worse, the website is evasive about who they are, what their mission is, and who's behind the operation. Plus, they have their own download operation that may offer competition to Cnet. That makes me scratch my head all the more so, not you?

The cattle are too easy to stampede, it's better to be careful and avoid spreading speculative allegations.

I use Shrink o' Matic for easy resizing and Picasa for photo editing.

Cnet is absolutely reputable.

Irfanview is still standard issue for all computers I set up. Never a problem with Cnet with the caveat as with any site that you have to be sure you're clicking the right button to download what you intend to download.

My reading of the "anonymous forum posting that's 3 years old" is that at that time you had to carefully navigate though their download process to opt out of receiving additional unwanted software. This seems to me to be essentially the same warning that both Snidely and cynic make, which I'll paraphrase as "Use them, but proceed with care"

Some people may consider a site that requires you to opt out to avoid receiving additional unwanted software as being "reputable" or "trustworthy", personally I think that makes the site in question "slightly slimy".

In any case, rather than believing anyone's assertions of trustworthiness/untrustworthiness for a given site, my MO is to research, and download with care (preferably with as much Javascript disabled as possible), and verify the results via a virus checker, and/or a malware checker, and/or against the checksum signature provided.

I wasn't very clear in my previous message, but my investigations into the issue at hand would lead me to state: "As of last Thursday, CNET is safe and trustworthy for the purposes of downloading Irfanview."

And even with that endorsement I'd give the general warning that you should go to the Irfanview page, and go from there to the CNET download link they provide, or go to CNET.com directly (somehow) and search for Irfanview and use that link. As opposed to blindly clicking on some link someone random joe provides claiming that it is a link to the CNET download page for Irfanview. (which hasn't happened here)

As has happened to many legit sites, I recall that CNET has had an incident or two where evil-doers have slipped in forms of undesirable code to what was thought to be straight forward software to download. CNET themselves caught the problem but admitted they hadn't done so immediately. Even Apple's App Stores and Google (Android) have regular and tardy discoveries of sometimes dangerous prohibited code and have to remove third party apps from their stores after the fact.

Sorry, bob, but CNET is a safe, mainstream, responsible site and it always has been (within the bounds of reasonable expectations for catching and removing problems). Any insinuation to the contrary is unreasonable.

Ads and piggyback downloads are what many sites use to produce revenue. Private sector employers that don't produce revenue also don't have employees. Even a straight update of Adobe Reader (a great program) from Adobe requires unchecking boxes to avoid piggybacks. Downloads of Apple software from Apple require unchecking boxes so that the Apple software doesn't disable other installed programs. Downloads in general are an area where bad things can happen at the wrong site and with the wrong software. Downloads should be restricted to what's really necessary and informed users need to know how to avoid undesired outcomes in doing so.

I'm not suggesting that a Polyanna attitude about the internet is warranted, but it's also not a walk at night through a blighted urban neighborhood.

PS - Javascript is NOT Java. It's Java that has had repeated incidents of security breaches, Javascript not so much.

I can corroborate bob's claim. I used to trust CNET, and used them almost exclusively, until the last couple of years. Something goes wrong every time I download something. I now refuse to use them. Anecdotal, but there you go.

On their homepage, do I download Irfanview via the 64-bit, or the Plug-ins and Add-ons? I was playing around with my little avatar and wasn't sure how to size it. It was too small. If I can make it a wee bit bigger, I will, hopefully with Irfanview.

rob, what have you experienced?

Once again someone has disagreed with you and you just cannot seem to let it go, even when the disagreement is largely a matter of opinion or terminology. You accept that piggyback downloads is a reasonable practice of a responsible company. I feel that it is sufficient to make a company worthy of the label "Slightly Slimy", irrespective of how many other companies of whatever size also follow the practice.

You claim they've always been safe, excepting of course for the times when haven't been. That to me is not reassuring. Furthermore you cannot categorically state they've always been safe, you may not have had any problems in the dozen or hundred or thousand or however many times you've used the site, but that is anecdotal evidence, which in most other realms you would take someone to task for relying on. Lastly, given that their safety has been demonstrated to be less than 100% in the past, by your own admission, unless they have changed their policies to ensure that no compromised files can reside on their system, any given download could be the next one that has been compromised.

While I think it is a reasonable expectation that any given file downloaded from Cnet would be safe, it is still prudent to verify that a given file is safe. To that end I have taken steps to conclusively determine that the copy of Irfanview currently hosted on the Cnet download site is (at least as of last Thursday) identical to the one offered directly from the Irfanview webpage. Which I feel is actually useful information to the original poster of this thread.

You have merely asserted that they are safe, and have always have been safe, based on your anecdotal experience and your knowledge that they are owned by a large corporation, and attacked anyone who dares suggest that may not be so.

I'm sorry bob, but I don't think your misinformed prejudice is fair nor useful to anyone. Nothing is 100% anything, that's not a reasonable expectation.

As you may know, users of some Apple products don't generally have any options as to where they get their software - Apple is a closed ecosystem and it has to inspect and pass everything. Is Apple also slightly slimy in your eyes? If you were to suggest people should avoid ipads and iphones because they're risky and infected, do you think anyone would take you seriously?

Apple's latest series of incidents is from last year :

Apple Removes 300 Infected Apps from its App Store - from Sept 2015