105 replies to this topic

[Periel]

It's worth adding: this forum is quite old - I don't know how assiduous the maintainers are with patching/updating the software and therefore how hardened it is security-wise. It's hardly beyond the bounds of possibility that it could have been hacked and a file replaced with another with a malicious payload. It can happen to the most tech-conscious hosters - remember how the Linux Mint repository was hacked with a compromised version a year or so ago, to their extreme embarrassment...

 

Therefore alerting on a positive is surely ALWAYS a good idea. It's safer for the original modder or admin staff to independently check the file with a known good version than just shooting the messenger.

[Creepin]

That presupposes that that the file IS clean. Or that end users should willy-nilly ignore an AV positive, even if possibly false. If you start from the ridiculous position (as you seem to be arguing) that all anonymously provided EXE files downloaded from the internet are clean and that your AV routinely lies to you, then THAT is a security nightmare waiting to happen and you frankly deserve to get infected for your stupidity.

If you cared to read carefully you'd noticed I only referred to ignoring positives while dealing with IE mods.

 

AND if you were around for some years you would know that WeiDU has a history of being detected as a false positive by various AV through time, which obviously doesn't make WeiDU any worse, only demonstrate what a crappy bunch these AVs are.

 

So yes, healthy and reasonable reaction within IE community is to ignore yet another half-assed AV for throwing yet another fit at the mod.

 

By the way, Virustotal gives 11/65 result, which  marks the file as false positive.

Edited by Creepin, 31 January 2018 - 10:22 PM.

[Wisp]

The zip is here. Go nuts.

 

I'd also like to discontinue the self-extracting packages, but last I heard, some users liked them and/or were lost without them.

[Mythicalc]

The zip is here. Go nuts.

 

I'd also like to discontinue the self-extracting packages, but last I heard, some users liked them and/or were lost without them.

 

Question:

 

I'm getting a virus blocker on the latest version, so trying the independent version. I wouldn't necessarily say i'm "lost" without a self-extractor, but I'd like to understand the installation package instructions better. 

 

It's my understanding, in most cases, I just need to grab the weidu executable and rename it "setup-atweaks," which is usually what i've done for mods lacking them. 

 

As such, I'm getting a ton of errors doing so, and looking at the instructions I've no clue what you mean by binaries and paths (I'm assuming "paths" mean the BG2 directory. Binaries are all the additional files I usually ignore in the weidu package?).

 

Otherwise, I really understand not falling over backwards because of Virus scans, but in fairness after installing 30 mods by myself this is the only one that's acted up on me. 

 

Really love and appreciate this mod and would love to get it working.

[The Imp]

.... As such, I'm getting a ton of errors doing so,

Did you extract the content of the .zip archive into the game folder, so that the content is still in the archives native folder, the "atweaks", cause if you remove the subfolder structure, every mod will throw errors at you, as well as if the folder is inside a default "atweaks-v452" folder that some archive tools propose, it will do the same thing, as it's not directly inside the game folder.

[Mythicalc]

Yes, when I extracted I do not touch the "atweaks" folder at all once it's extracted. 

 

Now, I've usually not had to do this, but should I also extract the weidu folder's subcontents into my game directory also? I haven't had to before, but that seems the most common sense next step.