VASSAL 3.5.5 Released

uckelman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
718
Reaction score
442
Location
Durham
Country
llUnited Kingdom
In case the other user has reported the alarm as a 'false positive' to the AV company, it has not had any effect.
More complaints to the vendor means more chance of success. Why not add your compliant to them?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,379
Reaction score
10,274
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
More complaints to the vendor means more chance of success. Why not add your compliant to them?
I did so before giving you notification here.

Then again, if it is possible to use the same uninstaller as for VASSAL v3.5.3 and previous versions instead of the one used for VASSAL v3.5.4 and v3.5.5 this might have a better chance of success of eliminating the issue.

von Marwitz
 

uckelman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
718
Reaction score
442
Location
Durham
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Then again, if it is possible to use the same uninstaller as for VASSAL v3.5.3 and previous versions instead of the one used for VASSAL v3.5.4 and v3.5.5 this might have a better chance of success of eliminating the issue.
It's not. The uninstaller is rebuilt with reach release, because the list of files to be removed is compiled in.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,379
Reaction score
10,274
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
It's not. The uninstaller is rebuilt with reach release, because the list of files to be removed is compiled in.
Hm. If this 'uninstalling-thingy' remains the same but only the list of files compiled in differs, then the issue would lie - for some obscure reason - in one of those files or rather in its presence of the list of to be uninstalled files?

von Marwitz
 

uckelman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
718
Reaction score
442
Location
Durham
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hm. If this 'uninstalling-thingy' remains the same but only the list of files compiled in differs, then the issue would lie - for some obscure reason - in one of those files or rather in its presence of the list of to be uninstalled files?

von Marwitz
The issue is most likely that the AV vendor is detecting common code between our uninstaller and uninstallers they've seen in malware. This isn't surprising, because the uninstaller generator we use is one of the most popular ones out there---you'll find it's used with all kinds of software, malware included.

Put another way: A lot of bank robbers have eaten bread. I had some toast for lunch, so I'm probably a bank robber. That's the sort of conclusion your AV program is drawing.
 
Top