NIS 2010 flags Arma II Patch 1.04 as suspicious

[MikeA 10]

New to the forums but wonder if anyone else has seen an AV program flag/warn about the new 1.04 patch. I've tried downloads from 3 different mirrors (including arma site) and all get flagged/quarantined by symantec IS 2010 on launch as having suspicious activity. (the 1.03 patch is not flagged like this)

Maybe this is normal (just overly cautious or securerom related?) but I have avoided updating/applying it for now. (I tried running 1.03 patch again - it is not flagged on launch like v1.04 patch is)

And what is the deal with Filefront - as I've seen before NIS flags the site as "unsafe" (yet everyone seems to link them as a mirror for many updates)

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

What the heck is NIS? What the heck is symantec IS 2010?

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

I assure you FileFront is one of the safest sites around. I've been a member since... forever.

[MikeA 10]

What the heck is NIS? What the heck is symantec IS 2010?

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

I assure you FileFront is one of the safest sites around. I've been a member since... forever.

Norton/Symantec Internet Security 2010 (fully up to date).

And again today (not the first time) when I chose one of the mirrors (that went to FF) Symantec IS 2010's firefox addon/check popped up a warning "this site is unsafe". (not the first time I've seen that... right or wrong, I've seen it before with NIS 2009)

BTW - just went to www.filefront.com - and again got a warning (red text) "this site is unsafe" ("computer threats: 3") - that page tonight lists this report

Threat Report

Total threats found: 3

Small-whitebg-red Viruses (what's this?)

Threats found: 3

Here is a complete list:

Threat Name: JS.Qsiframe

Location: http://download667.filefront.com/ckxxyrthrjtg/5186972/CM9798v293.rar

Threat Name: Suspicious.MH690

Location: http://download232.filefront.com/dv3lwhzrbjvg/14478569/Safety.exe

Threat Name: VIRUSES

File name: Suspicious.MH690

Location: http://download29.filefront.com/jxywytfi9pgg/14298579/ScootDmods1.0.exe

- see http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=filefront.com

Edited September 16, 2009 by MikeA

[kozzy420 21]

no problems here

[MikeA 10]

no problems here

well, all I can say is already posted above... I can't swear they're correct but you can understand after reading that why I mentioned it...

Edit - just realized you may be referring to the patch, not FF warnings...

again it may be just overly cautious IS 2010 monitoring on the patch - just wonder if anyone else has seen this. (and call me cautious but I'm avoiding FF after those warnings...)

Edited September 16, 2009 by MikeA

[hamis 0]

They are false warnings,just ignore them.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Is this like when cracking a game (or applying one) you get false-positives?

[MikeA 10]

They are false warnings,just ignore them.

thanks, regarding the patch, has anyone here got an explanation why the 1.04 patch is flagged and not 1.03 patch? (related to securerom?)

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Look at the user reviews on that Norton link you sent me. Oh and by the way, Norton is a crappy AV software from both my roommates experience and mine. I would not recommend it especially not recommend paying for it. But then again who pays for any AV software?

[Maddmatt 1]

Well considering it even flags Filefront as unsafe, I'd say it's just Norton being crap. (Edit: Reading that page you linked, it's actually only marking 3 downloads as unsafe)

That site has been around for years and is used by thousands, possibly millions, of people.

I agree with the post above. Norton is crap and there are free AV programs that are better than it. Avast is a good one.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Maddmatt

[MikeA 10]

Look at the user reviews on that Norton link you sent me. Oh and by the way, Norton is a crappy AV software from both my roommates experience and mine. I would not recommend it especially not recommend paying for it. But then again who pays for any AV software?

Yes, until last year I'd avoided NAV (for years) but after some good reviews of NIS 2009 (and $39 for 3 system license) I've used it - and it flagged some items that AVG didn't (v8 IIRC, I think) didn't.

Still - seeing those warnings (in the past and still again tonight) make me avoid FF as a source. If their warnings (specific items) are incorrect then the owners of FF should dispute them or explain why NIS safeweb has those items listed.

not that I trust it 100% either, but google's check doesn't flag it

http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=filefront.com

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Well considering it even flags Filefront as unsafe, I'd say it's just Norton being crap.

That site has been around for years and is used by thousands, possibly millions, of people.

I agree with the post above. Norton is crap and there are free AV programs that are better than it. Avast is a good one.

Yeah I use AVG personally. It detects stuff that others don't, it's completely free, and I can add false-positives to the exception list easily (have to do that a lot).

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------

not that I trust it 100% either, but google's check doesn't flag it

http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=filefront.com

Yeah AVG doesn't flag it either.

[MikeA 10]

Yeah I use AVG personally. It detects stuff that others don't, it's completely free, and I can add false-positives to the exception list easily (have to do that a lot).

well, I used freeAVG for years (and then got a freebie of their paid version - AVG 8 IIRC) - NIS 2009 found tracking cookies it missed (but that was in fall 2008) - and NIS 09 used less CPU/resources. (again I'd avoided NAV for years until seeing positive reviews of NIS 09) My install expires (sub) in 90 days and at that point I'll look at alternatives (and scrub the disk with a wire brush to remove it if need be LOL)

But didn't mean for this to turn into an AV debate - I just wondered why the 104 patch was flagged and not the 103 patch - and if anyone else had their AV software flag it.

Edited September 16, 2009 by MikeA

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Alright, haha sorry for the off-topic rant. :D

[MikeA 10]

Alright, haha sorry for the off-topic rant. :D

NP - just with the way things are these days I was curious if anyone had an expl why the 104 (and not the 103) patch was flagged on launch.

BTW - I remember a year ago when I first installed Crysis on a machine w/AVG 8 installed it popped up a warning on a generic Trojan (IIRC... popped up and then poof..) - that was during the securerom install I think. (man I wish that crap wasn't used... but that's another long story...)

Edited September 16, 2009 by MikeA

[Maddmatt 1]

Still - seeing those warnings (in the past and still again tonight) make me avoid FF as a source. If their warnings (specific items) are incorrect then the owners of FF should dispute them or explain why NIS safeweb has those items listed.

Filrefront is a file hosting service, anyone can post files there. Those are files that users have uploaded.

It's easy enough to use Filefront and not download those three files surely?

It's not Filefront's job to worry about what every crappy AV program says about their site. I'm sure they would check on those files if they were brought to their attention.

[MikeA 10]

Filrefront is a file hosting service, anyone can post files there. Those are files that users have uploaded.

It's easy enough to use Filefront and not download those three files surely?

It's not Filefront's job to worry about what every crappy AV program says about their site. I'm sure they would check on those files if they were brought to their attention.

(Sigh...) I know what you're saying, but if there are infected files there I'd prefer an AV that warns on them (I did not consider what link/frame, etc. that linked to those files - but if they are still there I'd not call detecting them a sign of crappy AV detection...) And if I were running FF (or any large hosting site) and knew that NIS (which I suspect has a ton of installed base) was flagging my site as 'unsafe' I think I'd a) want to know about it and b) correct the problem/or dispute it with Norton/Symantec. (but that's me - maybe they don't care what NIS says about their site or what NIS users are seeing when they visit...)

And I've seen some sites claim that all downloads/files were scanned (or was I dreaming?)

But let's waste more time/bandwidth on this pissing contest...

Edited September 16, 2009 by MikeA

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

BTW - I remember a year ago when I first installed Crysis on a machine w/AVG 8 installed it popped up a warning on a generic Trojan (IIRC... popped up and then poof..) - that was during the securerom install I think. (man I wish that crap wasn't used... but that's another long story...)

haha I remember that! I got Crysis 3 weeks before launch. I thought that was why, it wasn't added to the exception list via software update yet because I got it so early (I worked for Electronic Arts).

It makes sense though, suckurom is exactly like spyware. In my mind it is spyware.

[MikeA 10]

haha I remember that! I got Crysis 3 weeks before launch. I thought that was why, it wasn't added to the exception list via software update yet because I got it so early (I worked for Electronic Arts).

It makes sense though, suckurom is exactly like spyware. In my mind it is spyware.

agreed - and my wife gave me Wolfenstein for my b'day - and it too has securerom. I didn't realize that until I tried to run it w/o the DVD in the drive (and got securerom error)

And sadly, it's hardly worth the disk space the game takes up... (got it on launch day 1 - I wish she'd waited for the reviews...)

Edited September 16, 2009 by MikeA

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

agreed - and my wife gave me Wolfenstein for my b'day - and it too has securerom. I didn't realize that until I tried to run it w/o the DVD in the drive (and got securerom error)

And sadly, it's hardly worth the disk space the game takes up... (got it on launch day 1 - I wish she'd waited for the reviews...)

mhmm yeah that sucks. I 'got' the game from a means of 'digital distribution' and uninstalled it the next day.

[MikeA 10]

BTW - just extracted the ZIP again (3AM ET) and this time it didn't flag it.. (I had tried again about an hour ago - still red flagged it on launch). maybe one of the 'pulse' updates mattered (I swear I didn't uncheck the 'ignore' option after it was quarantined for the nth time last night)....

anyway, installed it.

[Placebo 29]

Plenty of mirrors now so people can avoid sites that their anti virus doesn't like :)

The patch does not have a virus and the Filefront site is a very well respected one I've used for years with no problems.