Community

Remote Camera

Links used in this discussion

Alan Jurek, User (Posts: 2)

Oct 25, 2018 1:25:53 pm EDT

I just updated to the latest version hoping for performance boosts and I find out that you removed one of the most useful features for me (I use many of them).  I see an older post from September saying you were discontinuing this feature.  Why?  It can't be privacy concerns since you have the banner displaying while it's active.

Conrad, Support (Posts: 2407)

Oct 26, 2018 4:45:14 am EDT

Hello Alan,

Thank you for your message.

Why? It can't be privacy concerns since you have the banner displaying while it's active.

You are right. But the bad guys never actually use the official version. Instead, they patch the official version and have the banner removed. I that got us into a lot of trouble with antivirus software in the past. So we decided to remove this feature altogether.

I am sorry that this made the program less useful for you. Alas, privacy and security considerations and good terms with antivirus software are our primary concerns.

Let me know if you have other questions.

A J, User (Posts: 2)

Oct 26, 2018 10:56:53 am EDT

Conrad,

I understand your concerns, but you already let the cat out of the bag.  If they are going to use the patched versions, then how is discontinuing the feature going to stop them?  They'll just do what I have to do know, use an older version.  Seems to me that you are just hurting the people that are using it legally, not stopping anything.

As for the AV companies, let them stop the patched versions.  As they should.  They should only be whitelisting the legitimate version's signature.  All other variants should be considered as unsafe.  It's not your problem/fault that someone else is hacking your application. If the AV companies banned every application that was hacked, then no Microsoft app would ever pass their tests.  Especially since MS products have been used as an attack vector since the beginning.  Let the AV company do their job and block the proper signatures instead of just blacklisting your app.  Seems like laziness on their part.

Ultimately, this is your call, but if we removed a feature from an application every time someone has an issue with it, we wouldn't have any applications.  Someone always has an issue with something, even if it's legitimate or the mass likes it.

I'm really disappointed that you are removing a very useful feature.  I hope you reconsider.  You really shouldn't let other companies dictated how you design your product.  You should listen to your users and base your decisions on their input.  They are what matters, not other companies.  The AV companies have no say and should do their job and filter the hacked versions, not the legitimate one.

Conrad, Support (Posts: 2407)

Oct 26, 2018 11:21:02 am EDT

Hello Alan,

As for the AV companies, let them stop the patched versions. As they should. They should only be whitelisting the legitimate version's signature. All other variants should be considered as unsafe. It's not your problem/fault that someone else is hacking your application. If the AV companies banned every application that was hacked, then no Microsoft app would ever pass their tests. Especially since MS products have been used as an attack vector since the beginning. Let the AV company do their job and block the proper signatures instead of just blacklisting your app. Seems like laziness on their part.

You are absolutely right. If only that would be that easy though. Some antivirus software companies are clearly out of sync with reality.

Ultimately, this is your call, but if we removed a feature from an application every time someone has an issue with it, we wouldn't have any applications. Someone always has an issue with something, even if it's legitimate or the mass likes it.

If this is a prominent feature used by most customers, yes. Unfortunately, we cannot say that about remote camera. This is more like a side feature that has never been supposed to be used in a corporate environment. Please, do understand our point - we are a commercial entity and we must care about our sales. If certain feature brings us trouble with a/v companies (yes, they are what they are - this world isn't ideal) we have to discontinue it.

The AV companies have no say and should do their job and filter the hacked versions, not the legitimate one.

Please, tell that to ESET who (as of this date 26 Oct, 2018) refuses to remove their "unsafe" detection of our product for almost three years, despite all our emails and phone calls to their headquarters in Slovakia and in other countries.

Xavier Norton, User (Posts: 1)

Sep 18, 2019 7:52:15 pm EDT

To follow-up on this idea - since we can control remotely the host, all we have to do is run a host program that shows the camera on-screen. The basic Windows camera results in a too rough and choppy experience, so maybe something like timed frames properly compressed in a local buffer that is viewed remotely might work... But there ought to be a better webcam solution. Any suggestions anyone?

* Website time zone: America/New_York (UTC -5)

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.