PureBasic Forums - English

Thanks, Fred!

PureLust wrote:

Fred wrote:No, nothing has been changed in the install process, strange.

I've disabled activity-analytics and v5.61 is still blocked. So I looked a bit deeper and I think I found it.

It looks like, that it's the new 'Zero-Day-Protection'.
With this new Protection my AntiVirus only accepts known Executeables, to protect against aggressive Encryption-Viruses like WannaCry etc.

If I disable AutoProtection I get the Message, that v5.61 is an unknown Application and I can execute it if I want, while v5.60 is executed without this Message - because it's already known by the AntiVirus-Cloud.

So, I guess anything is fine with v5.61 - it's just my AntiVirus who wants to protect me against ANYTHING UNKNOWN !!!

Bitdefender has the same crap lately - the new module "advanced threat defense" is giving trouble with all kind of software development tools which arent old and from microsoft
Soon developing software with those "consumer" software antivirus nonsense will be impossible. On a practical sidenote, bitdefender detected the "threat" so fast and in advance, that i couldnt even whitelist PB tools anymore because by that time, they where already advance blocked and erased - hard to whitelist something when it happens.

To get this to work at all, i had to pull the network cable and disable the antivirus during install - then reenable and whitelist tools before starting the tools. Really annoying and stupid.
Thanks for the new version Fred.

Thank you Fred.
I believe Fred made compiler. take a rest and cares.

Bitblazer wrote:bitdefender detected the "threat" so fast and in advance, that i couldnt even whitelist PB tools anymore because by that time, they where already advance blocked and erased - hard to whitelist something when it happens.

That's why you need to set both PureBasic's folder, and your app folders, as excluded folders in your anti-virus settings. Then nothing will get flagged when coding your apps.

Dude wrote:That's why you need to set both PureBasic's folder, and your app folders, as excluded folders in your anti-virus settings. Then nothing will get flagged when coding your apps.

Then you end up with a random named executable in $TMP being intercepted and it would be a bad idea to also exclude $TMP from being scanned.

Bitblazer wrote:Then you end up with a random named executable in $TMP being intercepted

No, the name isn't random, it's always: "PureBasic_Compilation0.exe", "PureBasic_Compilation1.exe", and so on. Very easy to add a wild-card version of that to your scanner's exclusion list, specifically: "PureBasic_Compilation*". I do that with Avast and it never flags the temp file.

Or, you can just set the compiler to create the temp executable in your source folder anyway, to avoid using $TMP at all.

PureBasic is very robust and customisable like that.

Dude wrote:

Bitblazer wrote:Then you end up with a random named executable in $TMP being intercepted

No, the name isn't random, it's always: "PureBasic_Compilation0.exe", "PureBasic_Compilation1.exe", and so on. Very easy to add a wild-card version of that to your scanner's exclusion list, specifically: "PureBasic_Compilation*". I do that with Avast and it never flags the temp file.

Or, you can just set the compiler to create the temp executable in your source folder anyway, to avoid using $TMP at all.

PureBasic is very robust and customisable like that.

Thats not the executable i talked about and thats easy to whitelist by assigning it to output the executable into the purebasic source folder and exclude that directory, because otherwise it will be a problem with "protected data" and every editor or tool anyway.

I was talking about a new beta being delivered in a self extracting executable and those unpack a random named installer file into $TMP named like this "{$tmp}+{unpacker-PID}+{random/running number}.exe". Thats a common naming scheme for self extracting executables to create unique names for their unpacked data . Sadly those are also used by trojans to unpack their payload.

Anyway - i think the problem of using self extracting exe-packers for patches or betas and the resulting problem is known to the PB creators and definately the antivirus creators by now.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the setup file. Stupid me.

Beta 2 is out

Fred wrote:Beta 2 is out

5 clous béret basque

Thanks Fred

Micoute wrote:5 clous béret basque

I have thinking a long time for understand this one

French wrote:j'ai réfléchi un bon moment pour la comprendre celle là

Thanks Fred

For MacOS with Touchbar don´t forget to remove defaults key 'NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled' if is used!

Change folder!

defaults delete -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.45 (X64)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled
defaults delete -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.45 (X86)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled
defaults delete -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.61 (X64)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled
defaults delete -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.61 (X86)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled

For other App´s

defaults write -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.44 (X64)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled -bool NO
defaults write -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.44 (X86)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled -bool NO
defaults write -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.60 (X64)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled -bool NO
defaults write -app "/Users/Michael/Applications/Purebasic v5.60 (X86)/PureBasic.app" NSFunctionBarAPIEnabled -bool NO

Is this needed for everyone or only if you set it manually before ?

Fred wrote:Is this needed for everyone or only if you set it manually before ?

Only if you set it before
Otherwise there are problems with the run with debugger

thanks.