Can we confirm that RTS is causing this by Turning Off RTS alone and retrying the Download. Meanwhile let me try this in the Test PC and post back.
I tried it in Chrome and the 64-bit version downloaded just fine and ran OK.
I cancelled the scan because I really don't need it but it did offer two avenues of help:
Microsoft Support Forums: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/security?page=1
Of course for you the UK site would apply but that may be of help.
You didn't perhaps try installing the 64-bit version on a 32-bit machine? Although I doubt it would even offer that choice on a 32-bit machine.
Now this is in Vista with MSC 12.8 iunstalled but I never once got an alert from McAfee.
As usual, this is a problem in XP only. I haven't encountered this with Windows 7.
I re-tried the download twice : once with only RTS turned off (the download succeeded, that's "msert(1) in the screenshot below) and again with both firewall and RTS active ("msert(2) in the screenshot). That one failed again with "Insufficient permission".
This was quite a large download (89Mb) so this could be a problem where someone is on a limited-bandwidth ISP package or where there is a charge for excess bandwidth (I'm thinking rather gloomily of Sky here).
Edit - The Download page offers a 32-bit/64-bit choice. In every case I was downloading the 32-bit version. The error message would have been different if the downloaded version was incompatible with the OS.
Poor old XP, it's almost like they're willing it to go away prematurely. Yes I really should clean that download up as it's 92mb or thereabouts. I'm wondering if it's looking for an admin or UAC- type of permission, which of course doesn't exist in the same way in XP?
Permissions aren't relevant in this case. All these attempts were in the Admin account, as experience has shown me that downloading and installing from a limited-privilege account rarely works.
Forget all the stuff about permissions, the relevant phrase from the explanatory page is
some other application, typically antivirus software, was accessing the downloaded file at the same time as Google Chrome
The only difference here between failure and success is that -
If McAfee Firewall+RTS are both On the download fails to complete, and what ends up in the destination folder is "Unconfirmed 438657.crdownload".
If Firewall+RTS are both turned Off the download succeeds.
If either one is turned Off but the other is On the download fails.
The important question is, what is happening here? What exactly is accessing the downloaded file, why does that interfere with Google Chrome, and why does the file access prevent the download from successful completion? As a side issue, I watched the 90-odd megabytes coming through : so what is the final stage that Google Chrome was prevented from doing that would have ensured that the download successfully completed?
I say again, some people have restrictions on their monthly bandwidth, or have to pay for everything that's downloaded. A 90-megabyte download that fails at the very last minute for some obscure antivirus-related reason would be a cause for concern. If it happened repeatedly then I suspect McAfee would get the thumbs-down.
You could ask support to investigate I suppose.. Why should it do it in XP and not mine or Selvan's or your 7?
You were doing it in Vista, Selvan used an "XP test box". Would that be a VM or an actual PC running XP?
I omitted the version info, I note that Selvan provided the info so here's mine :
- Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.41 m Aura (Selvan has Version 31.0.1650.63 m)
- MSC Version 12.8 Build 12.8.903 (same as Selvan)
- AV version 16.8.708
- Firewall version 13.8.712
I see here a possible link with the Apple iTunes problem. If McAfee locks the downloaded file to scan it and prevents Google Chrome from doing its own scan (which it does) then it is likely that after a certain time Chrome would report a "scan failed" error.
The defining factor here then would be not software versions but the time taken for McAfee to scan a large file, which would be affected by memory, cpu speed, number of active processes, and so forth. Powerful new boxes might not see the problem except on really large files or on a very busy system.
In that case the sensible thing to do would be for McAfee to liaise with the Chrome developers to ensure that the Chrome timeout period is extended. I hope this is what happens.