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.

Not a bug: really, modders can't be expected to jump each time some crappy antivirus shat its pants. Normal course of actions in cases like this is to contact a developer and demand file in question to be marked as clean.

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.

I'd point out that this is almost the only file threat that MSE has ever picked up for me in years of use, and this is the very last place I'd have expected to find a positive, false or not. That to me suggests that far from being a poor AV, it's actually LESS likely to give the false positives many other AVs throw up, and is exactly WHY I took notice of this (and reported it propmptly).

I'd agree with subtledoctor - self-uninstalling packages are the issue, NOT my or anyone else's AV, when there's no functional difference to providing a less opaque zip file like everybody else, and less risk involved if people are (bizarrely) in the habit of ignoring threats when they download stuff. And if it's not a bug, then where else should I post this? Putting it here allows others to confirm (or report clear) what their AV tells them. And if the modder has changed the way they pack the file recently (the v4.51 file doesn't give a positive) then they are now aware that their newer packer may have an issue, which is also helpful.

What isn't helpful is sneering about a choice of AV and suggesting that positives should just be ignored, and that they are never the responsibility of the person who compiled the file as they are always false (in your opinion). Because even if you're right THIS time, next time you WILL get bitten.

Thanks for the confirmation. My mistake - I can see now in the TP2 header:

  REQUIRE_PREDICATE GAME_IS ~tob bgt bg2ee eet~
 

Microsoft Security Essentials just quarantined the v4.52 EXE download here, saying it was infected with Trojan:Win32/Tiggre!plock - can I suggest this is repacked (perhaps as a Zip rather than a self-extracting EXE) urgently.

Is it not possible to make this great-looking mod BGT compatible? I thought that would still be pretty much default compatability for all mods, even post EE. :/  Not everyone wants to pay more for a game they already have in pre-EE format...