Just to add my observations. Installed on Vista and Win7 - both machines running Avast vs Symantec. - both cases Avast also notes to the user the exe and msi are unsigned and offers to run them in a sandbox. - After install as each of the modules is run for the fist time (swriter vs soffice) then Avast again pops up and again suggests this first time arrival be run in a sanbox. (note after saying no once it is no longer prompted)
Anyway - just how a different anti-virus package deals with it. //drew On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 16:39 -0500, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Out of curiosity I just did another download of the OOo-dev 3.4 Windows > > "MSI" r1293550 to see if the popularity contest had been won yet. > > > > Not yet. > > > > The Internet Explorer 9 download warning is > > "OOo-Dev-OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe is not commonly downloaded and > > could harm your computer." The file is already downloaded at that point, > > however. The options are Delete, Actions, and View downloads (opening a > > separate tool that shows downloads and status). The Actions option > > includes "Don't run this program (recommended)", "Delete", and "Run Anyway." > > > > A "Run Anyway" or a later execution of the downloaded .exe will provoke an > > User Account Control message (on default configurations, even for > > administrator accounts) that warns that the file is from an unknown source > > (that is, the .EXE is not signed) and that it was downloaded from the > > Internet. > > > > I also did a custom scan of the single download file using Microsoft > > Security Essentials. The scan (which is programmed to dig into these > > files) identified 51916 individual items and no threats. > > > > All of this is tolerable and arguably appropriate for developer snapshots. > > Users who use these builds need to rely on their own judgment about the > > trustworthiness of the origin and the content of those files. > > > > Note that it is the .exe that needs to be signed. This should not be > > confused with a .msi file, although I assume those can be signed also. > > Apache OpenOffice does not use .msi as the packaged binary that is > > downloaded. (It appears that LibreOffice has changed that.) It strikes me > > that using external digest values (md5 and sh1 digests) on the download > > requires a super-user skill set and should not be the only thing relied > > upon for project binary releases. > > > > Yes,MSI's can be installed and are required to be signed for some > distribution paths. Generally you want to sign what you distribute. > Don't expect the I.E. or your anti-virus is going to deflate a 200 MB > archive to see if some EXE inside is signed. (And then what about the > DLL's?) We should be signing the whole enchilada. > > -Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:19 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do > > > > The web-based downloader in Internet Explorer 9 also warns about the .exe > > files (not the tar.gz or Zip ones). The message is clearly a > > no-reputation-yet warning. > > > > This is an on-line check. When the file is known to be regularly > > downloaded, the report will change automatically. > > > > I have seen no AV warnings about the downloaded files themselves, although > > there is a standard OS warning on use of such files when they were > > downloaded from the internet and/or are not signed. (In Windows 8 Consumer > > Preview, it is necessary to click "details" to see that there is a "Run > > anyhow" selection.) > > > > I saw no AV warnings after the installation on any systems having Microsoft > > Malware detection and regularly-updated Windows Security Essentials. > > > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 07:00 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do > > > > Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing > > the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build. This is not a virus. > > "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their > > "reputation-based" threat assessments. Essentially, they evaluate > > software that you are about to install according to a range of > > factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have > > installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc. It is > > not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors. > > > > We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors. > > Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same > > position, since that installer will also be new,etc. > > > > A few things we should consider doing: > > > > 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case > > and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways" > > > > 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer. > > This takes a couple of weeks for them to process. And we can';t start > > this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our > > installer: > > > > https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/ > > > > 3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers. Apache already > > requires a detached signature. But Symantec has no idea about these. > > We need traditional Windows exe code signing. This will help us with > > Windows 8 as well. So it is something we probably want to look into > > at some point. > > > > My recommendation: > > > > Plan on doing 1. Do 2. as soon as we have a release. Look into 3. for AOO > > 4.0. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Rob > >
