Conrad Sallian's community posts

Hi David,

You won't be able to upload it here on the forum. Please, either send it as attachment at support@remote-utilities.com or just upload elsewhere on a third-party server and send us a link to download in the email message.

Please, do not publish on this forum your files or links that may be confidential.

Thanks.

Hello Jonas,

Thank you for your message.

Could you please clarify how exactly you are trying to connect to your server? Namely, are you trying to use the server to broker an Internet-ID connection or are you trying to connect to the server itself (i.e. using server Admin Console from another computer) ? A screenshot would help.

Looking forward to your reply.

Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification! Before we can try to help you, could you please test it out with the latest version (6.9.4.0). There were a lot of improvements in this version that can affect the issue at hand. I'm sure that you will immediately see the difference.

If not, just let me know and we'll be testing further. It could help if you sent us a sample page or two of your Powerpoint document with the video at support@remote-utilities.com, so that we can try reproduce the problem here. But before that please try using new version just to eliminate unnecessary steps for both of us.

Thank you!

David,

Try updating to version 6.9.4.0, the latest one (https://www.remoteutilities.com/download/) Among other things we also improved the screen capture transfer mechanism and that may also improve remote video playback.

Note that you should update both Viewer and Host and not just the Viewer.

Hope that helps.

Hello David,

Thank you for your post.

Watching videos via Remote Utilities might not be a good idea. The program encrypts the traffic and that takes time. It is optimized to transfer screen capture during normal work (like web surfing, for example), but video is another story. Unlike some of our competitors we never advertised Remote Utilities as suitable for watching video remotely, there are much more suitable technologies and tools for that.

Regarding Norton, could you please give us more specifics: a screenshot of the detection message would be great.

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.