Conrad Sallian's community posts

Petar Georgiev wrote:

ok, this argue is pointless. Believe me or not, i've checked few times via both Check for update option in the app and the  download section of the site.

Now can we focus on no sound capturing?

Hi Petar,

Check for update option doesn't check for betas. We wouldn't risk pushing the beta on our customers this ways since many of them use the program in production environment and stability is the key.

Regarding sound capture, we need more information.  Specifically, what exactly are you trying to capture? Is it something played back on the computer (like music) or you are trying to capture microphone input?

Was the Microsoft response an automated one (I'm sure) or possibly a human?

This is the usual response that they send when they white list a file. But looks like a template, of course.

Because I don't see that as an automatic whitelist for AV vendors, just an additional safety check that the .exe you have is from the people you expected it from before executing it (ie, from Microsoft, not Micros0ft).

It's not only a digital signature. We are also a registered developer with Microsoft.

Legit developers signed certs get stolen all the time and we find out days, weeks or months later something malicious got slipped in without someone knowing.

A compromised signature can get black listed within minutes. And Microsoft's SmartScreen as well as antivirus software are not supposed to let the files signed with such a signature run. Sure, there are must be other detection factors as well, I agree with that. But we still think that digital signatures are a bit underestimated.

But yeah, the big 6-10 vendors that will be installed by your customer base is main priority. I know from reading bleepingcomputer forums over the years, people tend to ignore the really obscure VirusTotal AV engines, but if one or more of the main vendors detects something, there is probably something to it.

VirusTotal could add a "trust score" for the engines they use. For example, if an a/v company never cares to respond to false positive requests their trust score should be low and users must see it. Or VT could even ban an engine from the list if they generate a lot of false positves and never respond to software developers.  

By the very representation of scan results VirusTotal makes their users think that AntiyAVL, Rising and K7 are as important, precise and well-established a/v companies as Kaspersky, McAfee and Symantec. Perhaps, they just want to avoid being accused of discrimination practices but this does their visitors /users no good.

Hello Max,

Just as I was writing this answer Microsoft informed us that they removed the detection and that one should update their definition files.

I perfectly understand what you say and agree completely. Unfortunately, there is little we can do because the antivirus software industry is in dismal state. How else can we characterize them if they cannot even distinguish a digitally signed file from an unsigned trojan-loaded one?

Just think about it - a file signed with an EV Code Signing Certificate coming from a legit developer gets detected as a trojan :) Well, of course not all a/v software is that bad though, but some are.

And there is this VirusTotal, which is another sad story. For almost three years we have been trying to convince them that not all antivirus software are created equal and that they should take a closer look at the quality of the a/v engines they use. Yet, they keep presenting their scan results alphabetically and in red type (even the relatively benign detections). So the never-responding-to-false-positive-requests Chinese antivirus by the name "AntiyAVL" (without VirusTotal you wouldn't even know that it exists) always gets at the top of the list with their bold red warning that Remote Utilities is unsafe :)

Hello Ray,

Yes, we know about the problem and have already informed Microsoft about it. Here is a related forum thread .

P.S. Please, post your messages in related threads only. This thread is dedicated to BitDefender detection, not Microsoft's Windows Defender detection.

Thanks.

Hi Antonio,

We have just sent a false positive report to Microsoft. Usually, they provide a fix very quick, within a day or two (by updating their signature database).

Thanks.

Hello,

Thank you for your message.

I tried the recovery but I don't get the license

You tried the recover key form and didn't receive an email, correct?

Anyway, please send us a message at sales@remote-utilities.com and we will look up your license key and send it to you via email.

Thanks.

Hello Vladimir,

Thank you for your message.  Please, check if you have "Use Ipv6" enabled and let us know.

Alternatively, just delete this registry entry

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Usoris\Remote Utilities Host

and restart the Host with default settings (i.e do not change the port). Then check if it works.

Hello Brian and Ron,

We have contacted IObit, the developer of Advanced System Care. This is what they say:

We downloaded your latest version to have a test and there is no such detection.

So please ask your user to provide more detaills like the program name and version of IObit product and the version of your software.

If possible, please ask your user to scan again and save the full log and send it to us.

You can send the log either directly to them or to us at support@remote-utilities.com and I will forward it to IObit.

Thank you.

Hello Tom,

The connections_4.xml file is the file where your general address book is stored. However, all entries must be shown not just some of them.

Either the file was corrupted somehow or it was one known bug with the 6.8 address book that has been fixed in the current version 6.9.

Anyway, I'm glad that you figured out and fixed the issue.

Thanks.

Petar Georgiev wrote:

Well, i can assure you there wasn't beta 2 either in the download section or blog.

See >  https://www.remoteutilities.com/about/blog/

Yes, both viewer and host are updated to .4

After we rolled out the final release we quite updated the headings of the blog posts so that they read version 6.9 instead of beta 2.

See our twitter messages of 24 September https://twitter.com/remoteutilities . There are still mentions of beta 2.