Positive security package results Flight1 FLT1CHK4.DLL

[Paul J 349]

I just need to understand something please. Say you own a Chevy (Windows/fligtsim), and purchase new rims/wheel to go from 15" to 17" (your addon) and then you purchase a "cruise control system" (your anti-virus) running on Chevy. It works fine. Then you receive an update for the cruise control system and all of a sudden, the 17" wheel are no longer working like expected (cruise control is off by a dozen or so mph). Is this the tire manufacturer that has to change your tires, or the cruise control manufacturer that has to update the system to work with your 17" tires (it works fine with other 17" tires, not just the brand you have purchased), from a commercial standpoint?

You are being waaaaaaay too simplistic, Jean-Luc: If you look at a corporate firewall, or security server you will see that it is being hit by, or detecting hundreds of thousands of hack attempts per month, with similar enormous numbers of viruses, trojans and the like - all attempting to get past that firewall and into the system. This is happening every second of every minute of every hour, all day, all week, all year. As fast as the A/V companies find a solution to a particular virus - a new or morphed one will take it's place. You cannot compare a tire, or a cruise-control system to millions of abstract computer programs. There is also no A/V manufacturer that can possibly keep up with the millions of viruses, trojans, spyware, etc., applets that are being pumped into and around the internet by the thousands of criminally-minded writers of this stuff. For them - it is an adrenaline rush. It is fun, and given the enormous global diversity of possible hardware configurations available - and the sheer number of Flight Sim software configurations available, along with the many software creation and compiler applications that are employed by the various developers - our FS developers have no possibility of creating an addon with is absolutely guaranteed to not throw up a false positive on your pc. Period. Plus - you have an ever-increasing chance of getting a false positive on a first install because of the ever increasing size of the internet. As said elsewhere - most good A/V applications will allow you to exclude "known ok" applications.With regard to your A/V software - it's up to you to check them all out before you buy one, and even then - you may not get what you thought you were getting. They are all "The best". Bottom line is - you cannot put the blame on Flight1 or Cloud9 or Carenado or Eaglesoft. These guys are no different from you or I - they will do their utmost to produce the very best product they can, and to ensure the security and integrity of those same products as they leave their servers, but once they are installed on your particular machine - the onus is on you to ensure your pc is secured by whatever means you can, and that includes making the judgment as to whether it is a false positive, or whether you do, in fact have a real infection.

[ubersu 78]

Sorry, but this is not true. The activation server is checked only when activating for the first time when you buy the product, OR when you need to reinstall the scenery on a new PC or after changing a major hardware component so, it's not really different from the Flight1 method.After the activation is verified once, the activation info is stored in the Windows registry so, as long as you don't reinstall Windows from scratch, no online access is needed anymore. It's very easy to verify this, just disable your internet connection, and the scenery will still work, because if it finds a valid activation in the registry, it doesn't need to go online.And, just to be precise, you don't even need online access when activating the first time, because there's an OFFLINE ACTIVATION method, that automatically pops out when no internet connection is detected, when the programs needs it (which is only when activating the first time, or when reinstalling Windows from scratch or on a new PC). In this case, there would be a code that can be used on *another* PC that has Web access to generate another code that can be used to activate the product on the non-internet connected PC. So, activations and regular use of the product, is possible even on PCs that never had ANY kind of internet connection.regards,Umberto Colapicchioni - VIRTUALI s.a.s.http://www.fsdreamteam.com

My error then, and thanks for the correction!DJ

[ubersu 78]

[Hi, JeanLuc_ and everyone.Since this post was not addressed to a specific individual, I hope I am not out of line for commenting.Your analogy lacks validity. If indeed you have a system, like you mentioned, I would expect that some Specifications will stipulate what the working combination is, and or provide a way to adjust for that variation / combination. The same thing is expected with the Code / Application.The problem here is not Hardware, is Software. I am sure you know the difference and I will not dwell on it.Now days we seem to lack the sense of responsibility, due, in part, of the external inputs, like the "great" politicians, actors, MS, celebrities in general, and self respect.We are talking Science / Engineering / Software. Nobody expects 100% compatibility, but everybody expects to know what the Code was tested on / works with, at the time of creation. Is that too much to ask?This is not a problem with just FS. Go to the store buy a Mobo that says XP compatible, go home spend hours getting a system together, try to install the Drivers, and find out that you must have at least XP SP1, or 2 in order for it to work. Who is responsible for this? It most certainly Not the User. Start with the board manufacturer 2 bit Engineers, move to MS who has no idea on how to maintain compatibility, the Store that stocks the product etc. How is the end user o know?Another example, go get an Utility that says Vista compatible, take it home put it on your Vista 64 system and find out the it will not work. You are stuck with the product. It's not the User's responsibility to test the code and see if it works, it's the designer that has to say Tested on

[Guest JeanLuc_]

You are being waaaaaaay too simplistic, Jean-Luc...

I thought that given the extra lenght in details Steve and Umberto have been through trying to explain the nature of the issue from a technical standpoint, and the apparent lack of understanding from the OP (I simplify the answer a "I just expect it to run"), this analogy would help put the topic for the OP to perspective.all in all, the only thing that is valid in regard to McAfee and the issue at hand, is their own EULA:Warranty Disclaimer. Except for the limited warranty set forth herein, THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND McAfee MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO ITS USE OR PERFORMANCE. EXCEPT FOR ANY WARRANTY, CONDITION, REPRESENTATION OR TERM THE EXTENT TO WHICH CANNOT BE EXCLUDED OR LIMITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MCAFEE, ITS SUPPLIERS, AND AUTHORIZED PARTNERS MAKE NO WARRANTY, CONDITION, REPRESENTATION, OR TERM (EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHETHER BY STATUTE, COMMON LAW, CUSTOM, USAGE OR OTHERWISE) AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY,INTEGRATION, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTING THE SOFTWARE TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION OF, USE OF, AND RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE SOFTWARE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS, MCAFEE MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL BE ERROR-FREE OR FREE FROM INTERRUPTIONS OR OTHER FAILURES OR THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS.http://us.mcafee.com/root/aboutUs.asp?id=eulaHope this helps!

[Avcomware 1]

Hi DJ.I do not want to sidetrack this post, and I am not sure how much more to the point I can be, but if this statement, ".. it's the designer that has to say Tested on… specifically, and what other known limitations may be known.", makes no sense to you, I am afraid I can't help you. I've generate many Test Procedures and Limitations in my life, and I've never seen the type of mess that I've been seeing recently. Nobody cares, let the User figure it out, we got our money and our EULA, scrap the rest. Why should anybody write anything that exposes the User to an outside intrusion? Just because they want to satisfy their ridiculous urge to Activate something a particular way? If you do not know how to do it without exposing the user to external danger, get out of the business.Assuming that, as someone said in this case, only once that access is used, why have it for ever enabled. Use it and kill it, this way no User is exposed unnecessarily. Easy, is it not? Free advice, without even getting Consulting fees. Why blame it on some AV?If you indeed worked as an Engineer, and I will not say that you did not, I see no reason for you to argue any point in my post. TV

[ubersu 78]

Hi DJ.I do not want to sidetrack this post, and I am not sure how much more to the point I can be, but if this statement, ".. it's the designer that has to say Tested on