[freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-02-10 Thread xor 
On Monday 18 January 2010 09:57:35 Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote:
> I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky
> and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use
> Freenet with Kaspersky?

We have to contact Kaspersky. Has anybody done that?

xor
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:

[freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-02-10 Thread Ian Clarke 
Victor,

Would you mind doing this - since you have experience dealing with them?

Ian.

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Victor Denisov  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'd say "Contact Kaspersky", they've been pretty responsive to such
> issues with a project I'd worked on a couple of years ago.
>
> Regards,
> Victor Denisov.
>
> Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote:
> > With the help from ermanno, I've tracked down the reasons for failed
> > Windows installs with Kaspersky.
> >
> > He was able to confirm that Kaspersky (at least on XP) falsely detects
> > the installer as PDM.Worm.P2P.generic. Googling this reveals that it's a
> > common bad heuristic that catches all kinds of things (for example:
> > Adobe's Flash Player uninstaller).
> >
> > On top of my head, I see two posibilities:
> >
> > 1) Kaspersky finds the node code and realizes that this is indeed some
> > kind of P2P.
> >
> > 2) Kaspersky freaks out over the local port scan the installer does to
> > find a free fproxy and fcp port.
> >
> > I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky
> > and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use
> > Freenet with Kaspersky?
> >
> > - Zero3
> > ___
> > Devl mailing list
> > Devl at freenetproject.org
> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> >
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iD8DBQFLVG23x7AVSvyjsUARAjUzAKDM5/t9As54apLCZn5wpnKq8mvNlwCeJp7Y
> wjHYZba2lO6njpCW67YhJR8=
> =HuWW
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>



-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, SenseArray
Email: ian at sensearray.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Re: [freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-02-10 Thread xor 
On Monday 18 January 2010 09:57:35 Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote:
 I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky
 and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use
 Freenet with Kaspersky?

We have to contact Kaspersky. Has anybody done that?

xor


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-02-10 Thread Ian Clarke 
Victor,

Would you mind doing this - since you have experience dealing with them?

Ian.

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Victor Denisov vdeni...@redline.ru wrote:

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 I'd say Contact Kaspersky, they've been pretty responsive to such
 issues with a project I'd worked on a couple of years ago.

 Regards,
 Victor Denisov.

 Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote:
  With the help from ermanno, I've tracked down the reasons for failed
  Windows installs with Kaspersky.
 
  He was able to confirm that Kaspersky (at least on XP) falsely detects
  the installer as PDM.Worm.P2P.generic. Googling this reveals that it's a
  common bad heuristic that catches all kinds of things (for example:
  Adobe's Flash Player uninstaller).
 
  On top of my head, I see two posibilities:
 
  1) Kaspersky finds the node code and realizes that this is indeed some
  kind of P2P.
 
  2) Kaspersky freaks out over the local port scan the installer does to
  find a free fproxy and fcp port.
 
  I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky
  and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use
  Freenet with Kaspersky?
 
  - Zero3
  ___
  Devl mailing list
  Devl@freenetproject.org
  http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
 

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

 iD8DBQFLVG23x7AVSvyjsUARAjUzAKDM5/t9As54apLCZn5wpnKq8mvNlwCeJp7Y
 wjHYZba2lO6njpCW67YhJR8=
 =HuWW
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl




-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, SenseArray
Email: i...@sensearray.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-01-18 Thread Victor Denisov 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I'd say "Contact Kaspersky", they've been pretty responsive to such
issues with a project I'd worked on a couple of years ago.

Regards,
Victor Denisov.

Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote:
> With the help from ermanno, I've tracked down the reasons for failed 
> Windows installs with Kaspersky.
> 
> He was able to confirm that Kaspersky (at least on XP) falsely detects 
> the installer as PDM.Worm.P2P.generic. Googling this reveals that it's a 
> common bad heuristic that catches all kinds of things (for example: 
> Adobe's Flash Player uninstaller).
> 
> On top of my head, I see two posibilities:
> 
> 1) Kaspersky finds the node code and realizes that this is indeed some 
> kind of P2P.
> 
> 2) Kaspersky freaks out over the local port scan the installer does to 
> find a free fproxy and fcp port.
> 
> I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky 
> and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use 
> Freenet with Kaspersky?
> 
> - Zero3
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFLVG23x7AVSvyjsUARAjUzAKDM5/t9As54apLCZn5wpnKq8mvNlwCeJp7Y
wjHYZba2lO6njpCW67YhJR8=
=HuWW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-01-18 Thread Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) 
With the help from ermanno, I've tracked down the reasons for failed 
Windows installs with Kaspersky.

He was able to confirm that Kaspersky (at least on XP) falsely detects 
the installer as PDM.Worm.P2P.generic. Googling this reveals that it's a 
common bad heuristic that catches all kinds of things (for example: 
Adobe's Flash Player uninstaller).

On top of my head, I see two posibilities:

1) Kaspersky finds the node code and realizes that this is indeed some 
kind of P2P.

2) Kaspersky freaks out over the local port scan the installer does to 
find a free fproxy and fcp port.

I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky 
and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use 
Freenet with Kaspersky?

- Zero3

[freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-01-18 Thread Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) 
With the help from ermanno, I've tracked down the reasons for failed 
Windows installs with Kaspersky.

He was able to confirm that Kaspersky (at least on XP) falsely detects 
the installer as PDM.Worm.P2P.generic. Googling this reveals that it's a 
common bad heuristic that catches all kinds of things (for example: 
Adobe's Flash Player uninstaller).

On top of my head, I see two posibilities:

1) Kaspersky finds the node code and realizes that this is indeed some 
kind of P2P.

2) Kaspersky freaks out over the local port scan the installer does to 
find a free fproxy and fcp port.

I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky 
and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use 
Freenet with Kaspersky?

- Zero3
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] False Kaspersky positives on Windows

2010-01-18 Thread Victor Denisov 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I'd say Contact Kaspersky, they've been pretty responsive to such
issues with a project I'd worked on a couple of years ago.

Regards,
Victor Denisov.

Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote:
 With the help from ermanno, I've tracked down the reasons for failed 
 Windows installs with Kaspersky.
 
 He was able to confirm that Kaspersky (at least on XP) falsely detects 
 the installer as PDM.Worm.P2P.generic. Googling this reveals that it's a 
 common bad heuristic that catches all kinds of things (for example: 
 Adobe's Flash Player uninstaller).
 
 On top of my head, I see two posibilities:
 
 1) Kaspersky finds the node code and realizes that this is indeed some 
 kind of P2P.
 
 2) Kaspersky freaks out over the local port scan the installer does to 
 find a free fproxy and fcp port.
 
 I'm not sure which is most likely. What do we do now? Contact Kaspersky 
 and ask them to fix their stuff? Or just directly warn users not to use 
 Freenet with Kaspersky?
 
 - Zero3
 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFLVG23x7AVSvyjsUARAjUzAKDM5/t9As54apLCZn5wpnKq8mvNlwCeJp7Y
wjHYZba2lO6njpCW67YhJR8=
=HuWW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl