Why do I need to mess around appealing to weird labs to use legitimate software, brought from a HIGHLY reputable company? This issue has been ongoing since at least the 5th of July and all I get is this suggestion to email a virus researh lab. It'd be funny if wasn't so frustrating, as far as I can see the jokes on me, as I'm paying to be jerked around and jump through arbatary hoops for the amusement of some lab tech. All becasue I wish to play a classic game!
1 of 1 people found this helpful
For goodness sake, it's quite common for software to be flagged from time to time by any antivirus as a possible risk. Don't ask me why it happens it just does.
If you don't want to follow my advice then fine, you'll have to just put up with it and hope eventually it sorts itself out.
??? Who said your advice was wrong or anything off the sort? I was expressing frustration at having to mess around contacting strange labs to make appeals, when I should be able to acknowledge that the AV software has a concern and at my own liability override that concern. A 'feature' common among most competing products???!!
Even more frustrating is the issue that Mcafee seemingly provides a means to easily refer the offending file for review, but restricts it in such a manner as to apparently cause further consternation.
I fully acknowledge that is hardley the goal of Mcafee but an unintended consiquence of having to deal with the general public. I too have expressed frustration at the seeminly incalcuable stupidity of people, such as the secondary school teacher who needed some petrol for an experiment, thought it appropriate to fill a coke bottle as that would be a safe, secure and adequate contianer!
I know it's frustrating but, especially in the gaming world, this happens quite often. The sooner you contact the labs the sooner it will hopefully be cleared. Better to err on the side of caution than let every single piece of unknown data through, I'm sure you will agree.
Sorry I wish I had an easier way to give you.
I too am in this situation, and have submitted the final fantasy executable. What I'd like to know is, why can't we mark a file as trusted on our own?
Given that this is a trusted company creating the file, the file was acquired by legal and reputable means, and the fact that McAfee is the only product I'm aware of that is quarantining this file, we are not given the option to prevent quarantine without disabling the heart of the antivirus software - the real-time scanning. While I'm sure it's not the intention of McAfee to hold our legitimately purchased software hostage, this is in effect what's happening... Were this proprietary software used for business that got flagged, this mighr cause lost wages, etc...
The fact is, false positives are not the norm. If we find one, we should have a workaround while we await the DAT file update. By not offering the option to self-trust, McAfee is making the product less secure by enticing their customers to bypass their security software en-masse in order to use legitimate software.
The ability to mark any detection as trusted now only exists in the Corporate/Enterprise product. The only time you can do that with the consumer software is when it's identified as a PUP, Possibly Unwanted Program.
They found that too many people were allowing everything in their machines and wrecking them as a result which cause unnecessary work for support.
While I understand the reality of what I call "allow" junkies, I suggest a compromise.
A method where if a McAfee representative can reasonably verify the false positive (ie: Call center/chat rep can see it's from a legitimate source, Only McAfee appears to be finding it as a virus) and ensures a correctly formatted false positive submission, they can upon a customer's request trust the file on a temporary basis. They should advise that by trusting a file, customers are waiving McAfee's responsibility for 2 weeks for any malware infections (twice as long as i was promised this would take to fix by the supervisor i was transferred to on the online chat) by which time the file will be either confirmed to be a false positive or a virus by a McAfee Labs tech, who at any time could send an update to the customer's software to forcefully disable the trusted file and explain why (that someone physically confirmed their submission had a virus, and that the customer is responsible for any charges to remove the virus, as they had absolved McAfee of any wrongdoing by trusting the file). trust would tie itself via an encrypted license key/file signature combo to prevent someone from generating their own trusts... you could even make it server-side enabled - ie: trusted files are blocked (but not quarantined) until it is verified trusted on server side.
This method does several things:
1. it increases reporting of false positives, thereby giving your labs guys more opportunities and data to fix issues
2. It increases customer satisfaction, as customers can use their software "right away"
3. It provides more security as people won't disable all virus protection to run one program.
4. it prevents a majority of questionable software from being allowed as people authorized by McAfee are still in control of trusting - the process can't be automated
5. It makes it clear that should a customer trust a file that could be a virus, that they take full responsibility for any consequences of trusting that file.
I would also recommend increasing the size which the software can report a false positive direct from the program. 6Mb is tiny these days, and if your program compresses the file, it's even smaller.
That sounds like you need to make a suggestion, here's the spot for it: https://community.mcafee.com/community/home/ideas
No guarantee it will be adopted but it's worth a try.