Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ailchim

Positive security package results Flight1 FLT1CHK4.DLL

Recommended Posts

In Dec 2008, my McAfee Total Protection 2009 security package started recording positives in respect of FLT1CHK4.DLL, which it quarantined/deleted as the Artemis Trojan, whatever that is.I believe similar problems have previously existed with other security packages and there are a number of posts on the subject in Flight1 forum.This produced problems with GE Pro, Level D 767 and the ATR and indeed loading FS9 itself, as I got a "Bad Licence" message from the Level D 767 as soon as I tried to start FS9.That was partially resolved with Flight1's assistance by loading an alternate version of the DLL but McAfee is also unhappy with other related files also and so the 767 and ATR are presently un-installed.The thing is left in limbo really, with Flight1 advocating using a security package which will accept or ignore their files and Mcafee apparently not willing to make an exception for the DLL's - at least they haven't advised me one way or the other.As of yesterday, I am now having similar trouble with FLT1CHK4.DLL with Lavasoft Ad-Aware Anniversary edition. It now feels as if the walls are closing in.Is anyone else having these troubles or have any solutions to them? If they are, I'd urge them to take the issue up with Flight1 and the security package vendors because otherwise, these excellent packages are going to become increasingly difficult to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

In Dec 2008, my McAfee Total Protection 2009 security package started recording positives in respect of FLT1CHK4.DLL, which it quarantined/deleted as the Artemis Trojan, whatever that is.I believe similar problems have previously existed with other security packages and there are a number of posts on the subject in Flight1 forum.This produced problems with GE Pro, Level D 767 and the ATR and indeed loading FS9 itself, as I got a "Bad Licence" message from the Level D 767 as soon as I tried to start FS9.That was partially resolved with Flight1's assistance by loading an alternate version of the DLL but McAfee is also unhappy with other related files also and so the 767 and ATR are presently un-installed.The thing is left in limbo really, with Flight1 advocating using a security package which will accept or ignore their files and Mcafee apparently not willing to make an exception for the DLL's - at least they haven't advised me one way or the other.As of yesterday, I am now having similar trouble with FLT1CHK4.DLL with Lavasoft Ad-Aware Anniversary edition. It now feels as if the walls are closing in.Is anyone else having these troubles or have any solutions to them? If they are, I'd urge them to take the issue up with Flight1 and the security package vendors because otherwise, these excellent packages are going to become increasingly difficult to use.
I've been running Mcafee for years and have all those above mentioned addon AC. I havent had any problems with the flight1 products and trojan detection. This is on WinXP SP2. And FSX SP1 not FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Dec 2008, my McAfee Total Protection 2009 security package started recording positives in respect of FLT1CHK4.DLL, which it quarantined/deleted as the Artemis Trojan, whatever that is.
The file may be infected. You can submit it to McAfee using the instructions here and they will tell you if it is or not:http://vil.nai.com/vil/submit-sample.aspxNo manufacturer, Flight 1 included, can guarantee you that their own files are free from virus - although it is unlikely and unusual. Perhaps the virus is in their distributed files? The solution is to submit the file in question to McAfee. Maybe it is a false positive, but they would be in a better position to tell you if you submit it. If it is a false positive, and you decide you trust Flight 1, you can tell your anti-virus software not to scan in that particular directory.It could also be that your workstation is otherwise compromised, and that infections are spreading to these files from other files on your workstation. Do you use any cracked or pirated software? If you do, your system is virtually guaranteed to be infected by software designed to engage your workstation surreptitiously in a botnet. How do you think all those botnets get built? They get built by capitalizing on people's greed/avarice and the simplicity of providing people with cracked, stolen software and/or pr0n. Could anyone be doing any late-night surfing on your workstation without your knowledge? Perhaps you should consider a new hard disk, or a trip to your local geek to reinstall your OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had BitDefender report FLT1CHK3.DLL as a virus.I really would like to know what kind of sneaky stuff Flight1 is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had BitDefender report FLT1CHK3.DLL as a virus.I really would like to know what kind of sneaky stuff Flight1 is doing.
They're not doing anything 'sneaky'. It's a false positive unless your pc is compromised as stated above.A top level Flight Sim add-on company isn't likely to do anything 'sneaky' involving installing viruses on customer's PCs, unless they want heaps of bad press, loss of revenue when users vote with their feet, and utimately the business folding. Think about it, people. Talking%20Ear%20Off.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had BitDefender report FLT1CHK3.DLL as a virus.I really would like to know what kind of sneaky stuff Flight1 is doing.
All of these companies such as McAfee, Norton, et alia are well aware of the false positives their programs generate, and refuse to take action to eliminate their problem.Take it up with McAfee or whomever's product is being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. Sorry for a delay in replying but our phone line was down yesterday.In order:-----> Daveo Which version of Mcafee? My problems started when I moved from their 2008 Internet Security Suite to the 2009 Total Internet Security. For some reason, McAfee think it's sensible to try to charge your more to renew the subscription on the old product that you can buy the new one for! Prior to that, I was able to run GE Pro, Level D 767 and the ATR without problem. Similarly with Ad-aware, no problem until I upgraded to the new freeware Anniversary Edition.This is what worries me - doesn't matter what security product you use, how do you know that the day after you fork out $XXX for the latest add-on, you won't get an update to your security package which stops you running it?-----> FSXMissionguy & N4GixReported it to Mcafee (and Flight1) as soon as the problem started. Other than an initial acknowledgement from McAfee have heard nothing and they don't seem to respond to informal communication, only their own procedural reporting. Flight1 have been helpful up to a point but their basic poistion is "get another security product".The Ad-aware problem has also been reported to them via the suspicious file submission process.I most definitely have no pirated software whatsoever. Nobody else uses my PC and the second machine on the network is protected by the 3-user Mcafee licence. McAfee is always fully on. I have no positives on any other files despite regular updates & scans-----> FSXMissionguy, FlilotUK & McCrashInteresting - Bitdefender is the 4th security package I have heard of giving these reports - my 2, Bitdefender and a 4th which was reported on the Flight1 forum but which has now dropped over the 12 month archive limit.I'm absolutely not accusing Flight1 of anything improper whatsoever. However, it's clear from the "bad licence" error message I get from the flt1chk4.dll file isn't in place that it's collecting product registration information & - probably - sending it for verification. I can see how that looks bad to a security package.And whatever they are doing, I can't use the products without changing my security product.I have to say that Mcafee does NOT allow you to "trust" an item it regards as a trojan. This is part of Flight1's argument that we should select our scurity products to suit their system. You must form your own opinion of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting - Bitdefender is the 4th security package I have heard of giving these reports - my 2, Bitdefender and a 4th which was reported on the Flight1 forum but which has now dropped over the 12 month archive limit.
Make ESET NOD32 #5. I have to disable the whole security system completely because 2 files are flagged hot while downloading. However, when the wrapper is complete, i can enable NOD32 and install (and use the software) without problems. That's why i didn't forward the quarantined files for evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line with these security products is that it is too difficult to always change products because of them. What are we to do? Recall CD's and DVD's in case of false-positives?We have been getting false positives for years, and so have other vendors, especially when you distribute so many products. We have replacement DLL's in our FAQ forum for some DLL versions to help get around false positives.The bottom line is that any virus scanner should have the ability to allow for exclusions. If not, then that is a huge failing in their design. If your virus scanner does not have the ability to do that, then you really should get one that does.Regarding your situation, we are not getting many extra reports as of late, so I wonder if you have your heuristics turned up too high. Plus, see if you can exclude the file. If a file is 1, 2, 3, years or older, and it has been in a product for that long, it is pretty well certain it is a false-positive.I did hear somewhere that McAffee REMOVED the ability to add exclusions. I can't verify it, but I also read they were considering adding it back. I do not know the status of this.There are maybe 25 different security vendors we have to contend with, so do realize that there is little we can do to stop false-positives. It is the nature of being in this business. We have dealt with these companies before, but I believe it is through the same channels others, such as you, use. We have no special channels to speak to them.Also note, that when a company verifies a false-positive, such as McAffee, and if they DO NOT adjust their DAT files, then that should be taken into account during the evaluation of their software. Even if we replaced the DLL's, that is zero guarantee the report would go away. We use different compilers and applications to make our products. DLL's and EXE's will get examined more closely. Also, when you distribute files that are almost 2 Gigabytes and size, any portion of those files could have a matching pattern. So you have to see what we are up against.I can guarantee you Flight1, as well as most all of the vendors in this industry, would never put spyware on a users system. So always do your checking, post in forums and ask questions, and make sure you have a security product that can allow you to do what you want with your system.Thanks,Steve HalpernFlight One Software

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SteveThanks for stating your position here as well as on your own forum and thank you also for the assistance a couple of months ago, even though this hasn't got 2 out of the 3 products back in operation. Mcafee have been completely uncommunicative which is why when we first spoke back in December, I hoped you might be able to exert some influence, which I certainly don't seem to be able to.I want to make it crystal clear again that I'm not accusing Flight1 of any malpractice of the sort security packages are really meant to prevent. However, you are definitely doing something other add-on vendors don't as I'm not having the same problem anywhere else - yet. Maybe others have had the problem with other vendors and I've just been lucky.Correct me if I'm wrong - the DLL (s) in question aren't a part of the add-on as the average user would understand it are they? They are part of the Flight1 licence checking routine which is common to several (if not all) products aren't they? e.g. it's not part of the LevelD 767, it's part of the Flight1 e-commerce system which sells it.I do agree that if I'd known McAfee was going to do this and I couldn't over-ride it, I wouldn't have purchased it. But then, the preceding version didn't cause a problem and why would I anticipate one with 2 such reputable brands? And that's the issue, because even if we accept that it's our responsibility to check your systems will operate with common security packages (which I don't and also don't think is entirely practical, since we won't know 'til we buy them, when it's too late), we are always exposed to an upgrade or update which alters the ground rules.The very least you could consider doing is to post a clear warning early in the Flight1 purchasing process as to which security packages are not going to allow your products to work. That allows the consumer to decide whether to part with his money for the add-on AND a new security package. The truth is 99% of your customers are innocents abroad, like me, and are not going to go trawling through the forums for potential snags before they buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-----> Daveo Which version of Mcafee? My problems started when I moved from their 2008 Internet Security Suite to the 2009 Total Internet Security. For some reason, McAfee think it's sensible to try to charge your more to renew the subscription on the old product that you can buy the new one for! Prior to that, I was able to run GE Pro, Level D 767 and the ATR without problem. Similarly with Ad-aware, no problem until I upgraded to the new freeware Anniversary Edition.This is what worries me - doesn't matter what security product you use, how do you know that the day after you fork out $XXX for the latest add-on, you won't get an update to your security package which stops you running it?
Im running Internet Security Suite 9.0 build 9.0.295. Started with 2007. with this setup. Hade the earlier versions also 7,6 5 etc...My builds got updated with the updates thru renewels. I ran with Norton in 2004 and 2005 before it became too much of a resource hog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very least you could consider doing is to post a clear warning early in the Flight1 purchasing process as to which security packages are not going to allow your products to work. That allows the consumer to decide whether to part with his money for the add-on AND a new security package.
If only it were so easy...We don't use the Flight1 wrapper, because we developed our own, and we were hit by the same kind of issues over time ( and, ironically, when an user encounters this problem, the "why don't you use the Flight1 wrapper" suggestion comes very often... ) and I assure you there's no way to be able to alert users of all potential problems, with accurate info.The reason for this is very simple: all antivirus usually have live updates, at least weekly, but sometimes even daily. We observed several case of a live update for a certain antivirus package that reported our software as a false positive, only to be fixed THE DAY AFTER, with another live update!How do you manage something like this ? We would have to stop developing addons, and spend the whole working day just to watch and test ALL available antivirus brands, in case a weekly update made by one of them breaks compatibility, that might very well be restored in a few days.Even worse: imagine a certain antivirus would always worked, and we posted constant reports of that being "safe" to use. What about people buying it after having followed our reports, and then discover the same antivirus would suddendly stop to work with our software, because of a live update ?The real issue is: an antivirus software is not a "fire and forget" solution, that you just install, keep it updated and not having to worry again, ever. This is what the antivirus venders would like to make you believe, so you purchase their software. Unfortunately, any security program is quite complex and it has to have several config options, that the user IS supposed to know how to operate and what they do exactly because they WILL break compatibility with something, somewere. For example, an antivirus software that doesn't let the user to explicitely trust a file to be clean and exclude it from scanning, is severely flawed. For the same reason, any antivirus that doesn't allow to turn off the heuristic scanning method ( which means "I don't know if this file is dangerous, but I'm trying to guess, but looking at what it does" ) is fundamentally flawed as well.These two options are usually the most important ones that HAVE to be under user control, and they usually can fix 99% of the false positive problems. If your antivirus doesn't allow to set them, change it with something else.A suggestion to check that at least the suspected file hasn't been infected by something else AFTER it was installed, is to use the digital signature (of course, the software vendor should have it signed in the first place). If the digital signature, that you can check by right-clicking on the file to look at its Properties, is there, you can be sure the file is bit-per-bit identical to the original version so, it hasn't been altered on your machine by something else, like a virus. This would leave you only with the very unlikely explanation that the developer distributed it with a virus inside and signed it which, even if it is possible, is VERY unlikely because, it would be reported as a true positive by ALL the antivirus at the same time so, if wouldn't go unnoticed for sure!best regards,Umberto Colapicchioni / VIRTUALIhttp://www.fsdreamteam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not doing anything 'sneaky'. It's a false positive unless your pc is compromised as stated above.A top level Flight Sim add-on company isn't likely to do anything 'sneaky' involving installing viruses on customer's PCs, unless they want heaps of bad press, loss of revenue when users vote with their feet, and utimately the business folding. Think about it, people. Talking%20Ear%20Off.gif
I didn't say they would put a virus in it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say they would put a virus in it!
True, you said this;"I really would like to know what kind of sneaky stuff Flight1 is doing."Looking up the proper definition of sneaky is easy, but would you care to offer your definition, as used in the line above?The .DLL file installed by Flight1 is used to verify a valid installation. There hasn't been any covert actions by Flight1 to hide the file's existance or purpose.I anxiously await your clarification on the statement quoted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I did an ATR and a Level-D test flight. No issues with latest Mcafee. I think just maybe your settings are more towards the paranoid side and maybe on auto where you dont get the chance to choose what action to take. Im not sure. I have options available to trust a suspect program if need be which happens with some of my IRC stuff. some of my bot scripts, even the weather script I have came up as a false because it does Out itself to WXunderground to pull up reports via an http script also. It may look suspicious to the AV program but it is still a legit script.Are you running FSX or FS9 by the way??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

------> VirtualiIn this case, I believe from the "bad licence" error message I get on the Level D 767 that the problem lies in whatever is being done to check that I have a valid product registration - which I do before we go down that route. We also know that this self same file affects at least 3 separate add-ons - the Level D 767, the Flight1 ATR and GE Pro. Therefore, with these 3 products having separate developers, the DLL is part of the Flight1 e-commerce system.So let's be clear, and I put this point to Steve Halpern earlier in this thread which he hasn't denied, what is happening is that the mechanism which Flight1 puts in place to protect itself against piracy is preventing me from using validly purchased products because the mechanism used to check those registrations looks like (NB LOOKS LIKE, not IS) something which is unacceptable to not one, but a series of security products. It is not a random set of coincidences giving a positive, it is the design or the process which is setting off the alarm bells.I sympathise with the need to prevent piracy but it's not, or shouldn't be, my problem; I don't do it.As I say, I have sympathy but I am in danger of getting annoyed when commercial vendors seem to say the opposite i.e. "Oh it's all very complicated and difficult to do, so therefore we won't bother, you the customer will have to deal with it". Is that too harsh a summary of what you are saying?You guys are the IT professionals and we, the customers are not. You have the revenues to at least buy one copy each of the mainstream security packages and try out your add-ons against them. We as customers do not have those revenues and in the majority of cases don't have the necessary expertise either.I have previously said my version of McAfee does not allow users to ignore security warnings. That isn't entirely true.The full truth is that Mcafee DOES allow the user the to selectively "trust" files it identifies as suspicious, although I would still qustion why I should have to make allowances in this way. However, it does NOT allow the user to ignore those files it places in the very highest risk category. This is where it places FLT1CHK4.DLL, albeit because it seems to think it is or contains the Artemeis Trojan.To reiterate, this file is I assume, going through my hard disk, collecting information and transmitting it to Flight1. Correct me if I'm wrong please, I don't even claim to be an expert. What is a security program supposed to think about that?-----------> DaveoThe problems arose with FS9 running under Vista. Coincidentally, I have just moved on from FS9 to FSX so the issues aren't really current for me, although if it wasn't for all this, I would have upgraded both the 767 and the ATR to FSX by now. I haven't because I can't be sure they will work.I do take security seriously but all the various security products are running as they came, I haven't altered any settings, up or down. What I think has caused the differences are that the newer products are doing more real-time monitoring rather than just working off the occasional scan and that's tripping up things which worked OK before. But what do I know?As noted above, it is true McAfee doesn't allow very much fine tuning. But then, it does place this file in it's highest risk category.Prior to this, I have NEVER had any problems installing or running anything to do with FS or even the other less adult games I play at times or any other software I have on my machine.I have never had the type of problems you indicate. I have used various versions of ActiveSky for weather - latterly ASV6.5 for FS9 and ASX for FSX. Never had any problems with weather downloads on either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

------> McCrashPlease do not make this a "bash Flight1" thread.I am positive there is nothing underhand here at all. Flight1 have ligitimately been preventing software piracy.However, that does appear increasingly to fall foul of newer security products, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case, I believe from the "bad licence" error message I get on the Level D 767 that the problem lies in whatever is being done to check that I have a valid product registration - which I do before we go down that route.
The "bad license" is not the cause of the problem, it's the effect of your antivirus that has mistakenly identified the Flight1 DLL as a virus, and it's blocking its execution.Since that file is needed to validate the license, if the antivirus is blocking it, the code inside the airplane doesn't have any other choice than issuing a license message, because the needed DLL is not running, because the antivirus is blocking it.
what is happening is that the mechanism which Flight1 puts in place to protect itself against piracy is preventing me from using validly purchased products because the mechanism used to check those registrations looks like (NB LOOKS LIKE, not IS) something which is unacceptable to not one, but a series of security products. It is not a random set of coincidences giving a positive, it is the design or the process which is setting off the alarm bells.
Seeing from the other point of view, it's the mechanism that the antivirus developer has in place to detect not yet to be discovered viruses that has a fault, and it's preventing you to use a software you have purchased! The options that every antivirus software has to control this (user white-listing a file or turning heuristic detection off) are there for a reason, because antivirus developers *knows* there might be a lot of false positives and without the chance to change the settings, lots of software wouldn't work.The issue is that you are assuming that the Flight1 wrapper is really doing something "strange", but in fact the fundamental flaw is the reliance of antivirus software upon heuristic detection, which is just a marketing gimmick to be able to advertize the antivirus software is able to catch viruses that hasn't been classified yet, and be able to advertize they can catch more viruses than the competition.If you would allowing me to explain what heuristic detection does, you would see how this might be cause a lot of problems to legit software that does legit things:Heuristic detection means that the antivirus is NOT using a verified database to judge if that file has a virus or not, but instead is trying to guess a possible danger by analyzing some behavioral patterns, which unfortunately are used BOTH by real virus AND by other legit software that deals with security, like any e-commerce software. Some of these includes the following:- ANY e-commerce software should use some form of encryption. Would you trust with your Credit Card an e-commerce software that doesn't ? Unfortunately, some viruses use encryption too, to conceal themselves from antivirus software so the antivirus might flag this behaviour as suspicious, when in fact is absolutely legit and required for an e-commerce application.- ANY e-commerce software should be able to protect itself from being modified BOTH for the developer security ( to prevent cracking) AND for the customer security. Would you trust with your Credit Card an e-commerce software that doesn't take any of such precautions, and being at risk of being modifed by an hacker, to include something like a keylogger, that might send away the data you are typing, including CC numbers ? Unfortunately, virus usually take the same precautions too, in order to defend against antivirus software that try to "heal" a file.- ANY e-commerce software should be able to protect itself from being debugged, which is also a security measure that protects both the developer against possible cracks AND the customer against the same dangers as above, since being able to debug a program is the first step to being able to cracki it or modifying it in any way, including adding malware, spyware or security holes (like key-loggers) which is something that many virus do to legit programs. Unfortunately, for the same reasons, real virus use checks against being debugged, so this might be considered a dangerous behaviour by the antivirus, although is used for legit purposes.- Most e-commerce software are not plain files, but they are usually compressed with some kind of run-time compression method that usually have some kind of enryption added to it, so only the software itself is able to decompress when it starts. Again, this is another measure to make hacks and modifications more difficult, which is an absolutely legitimate way for an e-commerce application, that needs to do whatever possible to not being tampered with, to protect BOTH the developer from cracks AND the customer from malware that might attach itself to the legit file. Unfortunately, there are virus out there that use the same technique, to hide inside a file that can't be opened without launching it, which might be dangerous if the file IS a real virus. So, the antivirus with heuristics on stays on the safe side, and blocks EVERY software that is wrapped in such way, without really knowing what's in there.So, these are the technical reasons why heuristic detection will NEVER be fully reliable, and should be used with great care, because it's the most likely reason of uncompatibilities between antivirus software and other software you run on your PC.The fact that more than one antivirus software detects the Flight1 .DLL as dangerous doesn't mean much, if you understood all the above explanations. It would be enough that a recently discovered virus used the same anti-debugging wrapper as Flight1's, that all antivirus out there might flag it as dangerous on their first live update. As I've said, when a DLL is wrapped in such way, the only way to uncompress it to see what's inside is to run it but, since the antivirus can't risk doing that, it's blocking it straight away, because it doesn't have a chance to really "see" what is DOING, it's just assuming that there *might* be a virus inside that compressed file JUST because a real virus was found to use the same kind of compression.So, now that you have all the information available, I hope you finally understood why heuristic detection should not be trusted, not at least without knowing exactly what it means.As I've said before, the digital signature is a way for you to know that the file you have on your disk is exactly the same as was released by the developer (provided it has been signed, I don't remember if Flight1 signs their executables, but I guess they do) and hasn't been altered in any way because even if just a byte was changed, the digital signature wouldn't be valid anymore.I strongly suggest you to either configure your antivirus to allow exacution of the FLT1CHK4.DLL file OR, just turn heuristic detection off, and you shouldn't have any more false positive issues.best regards,Umberto Colapicchioni / VIRTUALIhttp://www.fsdreamteam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--------> VirtualiI think we may be having communication problems and I'm afraid I can't help because unlike you I have no ability in foreign languages at all.1) I know it's not a bad licence causing the problem but that the DLL which normally checks the registration has been removed by the security package. My point is that usually, something which collects information from your computer and send it to another computer IS regarded as at least spyware.2) That said, I am categorically NOT saying the Flight1 system is doing anything other than checking its own licences. However, the mechanism being used to do that seems to be becoming increasingly unacceptable to mainstream security packages.3) You have given a very complex explanation of what's going on. I appreciate your efforts but I'm a simple customer, I'm not interested. I want my purchases to work and as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the people that sell them to make sure they do. I'm willing to follow clear & simple warnings which should be available before I make my purchase. Just as an FS add-on might bear the warning "Requires Acceleration Pack/SP2", Flight1 products should currently be bearing the warning "May not work with McAfee security products". If a problem develops after-sale which puts products sold into conflict with other software, potentially for thousands of people, then it's up to the vendor to work with the other software provider to rectify the situation, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a problem develops after-sale which puts products sold into conflict with other software, potentially for thousands of people, then it's up to the vendor to work with the other software provider to rectify the situation
Which they have done, and hit the same brick wall as every one else has. What now? The add-on company has tried to get the situation rectified, but cannot. So maybe they put a warning on their website "May not work with X Security/Antivirus". Customers still moan "I really WANT that plane but I have X Antivirus. If I want the plane I have to also purchase another antivirus software package, or dump the one I paid for on a year's subscription." It's a no win situation for the vendor. You really expect Flight1 to monitor and test every single antivirus product on the market? Remember that while most AV Vendors produce their own Update/DAT/Definition files, some do not and may use versions of McAfees definitions. How do you know? You dont until you use the product. If McAfee dont back down and change their perception of the file in the DATS, it affects other AV software too. You really think Flight1 have the resources to check all that? Maybe they can alter their DLL to work a different way? That's fine for new customers and new products, what about the thousands of existing ones with the old DLL? The onus here is on the AV companies to recognise that an established company's DLL file is not viral or spyware, especially when the company itself and many hundreds if not thousands of users have sibmitted the file for testing as a false-positive. The FS add-on vendors are listening, the AV vendors are not. End of.
, not me.
Ever heard the phrase "help comes to those who begin with helping themselves"? If everyone took the attitude where they would not try and help others, the flight sim community would no longer be a community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Carl, and everyone."The onus here is on the AV companies to recognise that an established company's DLL file is not viral or spyware,.."You, and I, wish that life were that simple, but the reality is that if an entity / Company, that is in the business of analyzing Security treats considers a chunk of code to be a security treat, is up to the people that created that code to learn, and change. I am sure you know all about how secure all the MS's code, and promises are, what makes you think this is different? Yes, the Developer Must test all the available combinations, make a change, or state what they tested it with. We seem to live in a very superficial World, Engineers no longer care what actual Facts / Science is. Get something out the door to get some cash, goal accomplished. The end user buys the product, and because of the MS's and others in the Software business, new introduction of you bought it you are stuck with it, they feel that they do not have to do any real testing. Put it out, we just use the Customers as Beta testers, when they find something we just SP it, or better yet if there are not enough of them that complain, just ignore it.I am with the Buyer / Customer, in this case, it's up to the Developer to make it work, and reimburse him for his lost time, in some way. The fact that one has something out in the thousands, does not make it right. Again look at MS and others. I am getting tired of buying things that do not specify exactly what is working with., like is Vista compatible, buy it and it will not work with Vista 64, or XP and it will not work with original release, you must have at least SP2, SP3 etc.Where has the engineering responsibility gone? Or maybe the Software companies do not need to follow the same rules. Maybe they are in the wrong business, try a political career, more money and you can do and say anything you want, no science, no facts, no responsibility, and a great pension to boot. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I know it's not a bad licence causing the problem but that the DLL which normally checks the registration has been removed by the security package. My point is that usually, something which collects information from your computer and send it to another computer IS regarded as at least spyware.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about this .dll which is creating unnecesasry confusion.This .dll does not ever "phone home." Period. The Flight1 wrapper package does "phone home" once (or never at all if the user chooses to use the off-line activation method). Once validated, the wrapper package will "unwrap" the contents to whatever source files the developer has "wrapped." Typically this is a separate installer executable, a "readme.txt" and perhaps some bitmap images.Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process.If a virus checking program has improperly flagged the .dll as suspect, and inhibits it from being executed/querried, then at that point the aircraft gauge system will report an error message...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fr. Bill, and everyone."Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process."While the Developers may only use that, as you stated, and I do not dispute it, what is there to stop others from using it? I see it all the time in my system, Vista 64 SP1, where attempts are made to access the Auto dialer through other Applications. If the gate is there, someone will use it. We should have learned from MS's blunders in the past, and present. Not only you do not know when and what they are sending, they are making it next to impossible to disable that action.If a Developer needs to get info., they need to let the Customer know, what and iwhen nfo. is gathered, and that code should Never be imbedded in an active, continuous use, executable. Use it once, allow the user to quarantine that App., or use it and disable, No Op that portion of the Code. Having an active .dll that can be used as back door is Not a good idea. Tell that to MS, I've been telling them for years, and they still don't get it.The intent does not have to be malicious, but I want to know about what goes out. These acts are no different than someone walking in my house, without my knowledge, using my tools, bathroom, etc. and walking out. Why do we put up with it? I am gathering data right now to see what MS, and others, are sending out without my permission / ability to disable that function, it's scary stuff. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Fr. Bill, and everyone."Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process."While the Developers may only use that, as you stated, and I do not dispute it, what is there to stop others from using it? I see it all the time in my system, Vista 64 SP1, where attempts are made to access the Auto dialer through other Applications. If the gate is there, someone will use it. We should have learned from MS's blunders in the past, and present. Not only you do not know when and what they are sending, they are making it next to impossible to disable that action.If a Developer needs to get info., they need to let the Customer know, what and iwhen nfo. is gathered, and that code should Never be imbedded in an active, continuous use, executable. Use it once, allow the user to quarantine that App., or use it and disable, No Op that portion of the Code. Having an active .dll that can be used as back door is Not a good idea. Tell that to MS, I've been telling them for years, and they still don't get it.The intent does not have to be malicious, but I want to know about what goes out. These acts are no different than someone walking in my house, without my knowledge, using my tools, bathroom, etc. and walking out. Why do we put up with it? I am gathering data right now to see what MS, and others, are sending out without my permission / ability to disable that function, it's scary stuff. TV
Fr. Bill's point is that the .dll never calls home. The Flight1 wrapper does so on installation and that's it. A key is generated during that process. The .dll queries the key (on your local machine) when the aircraft is loaded. That's it. So far as I am aware, only Cloud9 and FSDreamTeam actively query a key server at load time (a choice that I very much dislike, BTW - but they're right up front about it). All that said, if you want to prevent the outflow of information from your system it's really quite simple - there are several free and payware firewalls that give you that ability.DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a problem develops after-sale which puts products sold into conflict with other software, potentially for thousands of people, then it's up to the vendor to work with the other software provider to rectify the situation, not me.
You should throw in the towel then... it's not going to work out for you. There is no proof that this is systemic across the total base of users and the ultimate solution, given Steve's response, is to allow an exception to their .DLL file in your AV software. I am saying this despite the fact that I've also been bitten by this same problem with NOD32 and Vista64. In my case, the Flight1 wrapper .EXE file was dinged as "bad." I've also had other "software-within-a-wrapper" programs get dinged by AV programs. AV programs don't like it because it is software compressed within other software.When you understand the problem, you will see that the work-arounds are trivial. When you throw your hands up and demand that "...the customer is always right," and that a workable solution is completely on the vendor then, honestly, I don't think the Flight1 wrapper way is going to work for you. That's a shame because a majority of the rest of us are doing okay, even if we do have to take an extra step or two. Don't get me wrong, it's your right to as a customre to become incensed and indignant, but I don't think it is going to get much traction. The truth is, Steve's answer was honest and indicated that the cost disincentives to stay on top of every AV package out there on a daily basis. Also, they'd have to use mulitple machines/images and/or boot-partitions in order to undertake this daily test as these AV programs don't like to co-exist.There might be a vendor of some software somewhere out there who would undertake the hand-holding care you seek, but I think you can multiply the sticker price by a factor of 10 or more above what the typical Flight1 title costs.Of course, if you are here to argue the merits of your position in a rhetorical sense, then I suppose that is up to the moderators. In any case, I think you got the authoritative response "from the horse's mouth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites