General Category > General Discussion

Couatl engine failed after installing new airports

<< < (2/6) > >>

virtuali:
I doubt the Addon Manager installer will work correctly in Safe mode. You have to install it normally.

Fact you can't even fully deactivate Norton in normal mode, only adds up to my suggestion to switch to a more reliable product, like the free MS Security Essentials, which doesn't mistakenly identify our software as a threat to begin with, which means it doesn't require any special configuration, it just works.

Highiron:
Ok, it seems I found the problem, and it wasn't with the anti-virus. You may want to remember this as another possibility of the problem.

Just on a side note, the downloader and installer worked fine in Safe Mode. Just make sure Internet access is enabled with Safe Mode. It ran and placed all the files where they belong. A sure fire way to get around any anti-virus issues.

After running the installer for the Addon Manager once for Prepar3D and once for FSX, I had failure of the Couatl engine in Prepar3D. I wondered if the same was true for FSX, so I fired it up. When FSX booted I got three messages asking if I trusted the Virtuali Addon Manager, Couatl, and something else I missed. Naturally I selected "yes" to all the prompts of trusted software. In FSX I had the Addon Manager and Couatl working, no problems. I didn't recall seeing any of the same prompts when starting up Prepar3D, (if I trusted your software). This got me thinking about permissions. In FSX, I was being asked if I trusted your software, in Prepar3D I was not. In FSX the Couatl engine worked, in Prepar3D it did not.

I have full administrative rights on my system all the time, and both my FSX and Prepar3D installations reside on a separate drive away from the default C:/. I opened the the Fsdreamteam folder and navigated to "Prepar3D/Fsdreamteam/couatl/couatl.exe" and right clicked it and selected the "Properties" tab. I then selected the "Compatibility" tab and checked the "run this program as an administrator" checkbox, selected "apply" then "OK" and closed the window. This time when I ran Prepar3D, the menu had the Addon Manager and the Couatl Products tabs present and all the FSDT airports functioned properly.

In my FSX installation, I have not had to do this, perhaps because during initial boot of FSX, it is permitting their use because as an "Administrative" user allowing the files to be determined as "Trusted". In Prepar3D however these "pop up" Windows do not appear, it goes straight to loading the scenery and terrain and then into the simulation environment. This never allows the user do determine the "Trusted" factor of any of these .exe files. By habit, I always check the box of any .exe file to "run this program as an administrator", regardless of what drive the file resides on. This has gone a long way to prevent unexpected problems of programs. Usually when a file is  overwritten in retains the set properties, which is why in the past the Couatl.exe even though updated always functioned properly. For some reason this time, perhaps because of the install of multiple new airports the setting was removed. Even having full Administrative privileges over the system was not sufficient enough for the Couatle.exe to run. As soon as I checked the box, it instantly worked.

So in closing I would also recommend that when the issue crops up that anti-virus be turned off during download and install as a safe guard, but also that the "run this program as an administrator" check box is checked as well in the "Compatibility" options, particularly in Prepar3D as this appears at the moment to be a must for functionality.


--- Quote ---Fact you can't even fully deactivate Norton in normal mode, only adds up to my suggestion to switch to a more reliable product, like the free MS Security Essentials, which doesn't mistakenly identify our software as a threat to begin with, which means it doesn't require any special configuration, it just works.
--- End quote ---

I know you hate Norton with the red hot intensity of a 1000 suns, but there is good reason for this. A little history reveals why. Several years ago a virus was created that not only harmed ones computer, but was designed to mess with Norton. When it was downloaded in a file, the first thing it did was disable Norton silently in the background. It then tinkered with the files to give the appearance to the user that Norton was up and running, when in fact it was not, and even go so far as to show that "updates have been downloaded and installed" and that the user was now up to date. This too was false. Meanwhile, the virus delivered it's payload and began it's nasty little work on your system. I only downloaded what I determined as "safe" material yet this little sucker found it's way onto my system. I only discovered it when my Internet was down and I still received the message that updates had been downloaded and installed and that I was now up to date. Really? With no Internet connection! I shut my system down. When my Internet was up and running, I opened the Norton control panel manually, and manually selected "Run Live Update", which was followed by a huge amount of content, then ran the scan, and low and behold it found the virus and sent if packing. The conclusion reached by Norton was that if you or I can disable the module, so too can a hacker or cleverly scripted virus. The solution was to make it impossible for it to be shut down, other than by un-installing it. This is still a real vurnability any anti-virus has that can be totally and completely disabled. Noton 360 is extremely robust and I must admit, your content is the first in 10 years of use that I have had conflicts with. It is true, that this is not accepatble considering you have sent them the offending files and have recieved no "love". I will contact their customer support and will also give them a nudge as they proclaim to detest false positives, well now I'm going to call them out on it, and hopefully end this problem for good, at least with Norton anyway.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: Highiron on December 12, 2011, 04:45:58 am ---I didn't recall seeing any of the same prompts when starting up Prepar3D, (if I trusted your software). This got me thinking about permissions. In FSX, I was being asked if I trusted your software, in Prepar3D I was not. In FSX the Couatl engine worked, in Prepar3D it did not.
--- End quote ---

That's normal: Prepar3D doesn't use the Trust system at all. Modules are always trusted, unless you un-trust their publisher in the Windows security settings.


--- Quote ---So in closing I would also recommend that when the issue crops up that anti-virus be turned off during download and install as a safe guard, but also that the "run this program as an administrator" check box is checked as well in the "Compatibility" options, particularly in Prepar3D as this appears at the moment to be a must for functionality.
--- End quote ---

Note that, if you browse the P3D support forum, running as Administrator is suggested by Lockheed Martin people as a general rule, there was a problem with the sim crashing accessing the Scenery Library, if not run as Admin.

My suggestion (which is valid for FSX too), is to install it in a folder you have complete control, like C:\Prepar3D (or C:\FSX in case of FSX), instead of the default C:\Program Files, because under Vista or Windows 7, only programs run As Administrator have write permission in the C:\Program Files.

This means, any product that tries to write something in its own folder, will usually crash. It's not the case of our own modules, because they are all Vista/Win7 aware, and don't try to write in their folders, but in the correct %APPDATA% folders. However, a lots of 3rd party addons expects to write in their own folder, and will fail if you install them in a Flight sim installed under C:\Program Files.


--- Quote ---I know you hate Norton with the red hot intensity of a 1000 suns, but there is good reason for this. A little history reveals why
--- End quote ---

I'm sorry, but I have a different view when judging an antivirus. To me, the best antivirus is NOT the one that "catches more virus than the competitor's", this is what the antivirus marketing people are pushing into, and because of this, they use questionable heuristic methods, in order to advertise their ability to catch virus *before* they are discovered.

Doing this, obviously results in flagging as threats lots of legit programs only because they use things like encryptions or anti-tampering methods, which is to be expected with something that handle security and handle sensitive data like your personal details/credit card.

I rate an antivirus highly if it does its job without interfering with mine. An antivirus that causes too many false positives creates more issues that the actual virus that is supposed to defend from...

In addition to that, when we contacted Symantec with a false positive report (twice), they replied that our modules are not considered threats by their product so, there would no need to do any action on their part. Yet I keep getting reports from users that Norton 360 blocks our installers. When we reported a false positive to Vipre, they whitelisted it and updated their data definition in less than 24 hours...

That's why I'll keep suggesting to every Norton user to switch to a more reliable product.

Highiron:
I submitted the KLAS file download link and info to Symantec and this was the response:


--- Quote ---"The Symantec Insight Dispute team has reviewed your recent submission to the Insight Dispute Submission form Webpage form "klas_fsx_setup." In light of further investigation and analysis Symantec is happy to remove this detection from within its products. Please ensure that your machine reflects the change by running LiveUpdate.
 
Decisions made by Symantec are subject to change if alterations to the Software are made over time or as classification criteria and/or the policy employed by Symantec changes over time to address the evolving landscape.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Symantec Insight Dispute Team"
--- End quote ---

This was very easy to do using this form found here: https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/

It took about 4 working days to get the conclusion. When they asked why I thought it should be excluded, in the comments amongst other things I included "because it's choking up his forums!". LOL

I believe Hawaiian Airports 2 and Geneva suffer the same fate as KLAS as my download folders are once again empty. I did mention it to them, but I believe it's 1 form for each issue. I could try downloading them again, and see what happens.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: Highiron on December 18, 2011, 01:30:30 am ---This was very easy to do using this form found here: https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/
--- End quote ---

Which is obviously what we did, twice. But since the file they mistakenly flagged as "dangerous", is Couatl.exe, we sent THAT one for analysis. They said that Norton doesn't block that file anymore, so there was no need to do any action, because they already fixed this.

But the problem is we sent the current version, because that one is what is downloaded online, and it's always being updated. But the installers might not necessarily contains always the same version that is online, it could be the online version was already updated in the meantime.

Which indicates how even the method of clearing files is flawed, since it's not based on what the program REALLY does (or doesn't), it's just an hash of the file. If we change something even trivial that doesn't affect behavior at all, like the program icon, this shouldn't require a new "analysys" on their part, but since the file hash has changed, their flawed heuristic will then again raise a suspect, and re-block the file again.

I'm sorry, but even the false positive reporting doesn't really solve the issue. The issue will be fixed when they'll change their heuristic in order not to automatically trigger a detection, it's not that all antivirus behave like this, most of them aren't.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page