Use the In-Game Community Mods - Original PA Mod Manager (PAMM) is Obsolete

Blink tags.

You monster!

the problem was not with the contents that is isntalled, it was the packer that the installer used that was the problem (the packer is commen used in malware)

use a dif packer problem solved, think it allready has been changed as VT no longer goes bonkers on it the 4.0.2 update

still would like to know how to fix the issue with not been able to use the PA mod manager on my main pc (that cross domain thing)

Yep, but it's not my responsibility, as a user of your mod, to do that job for you, it is your responsibility. That is the point of the conversation I was having with Quitch.

Pamm relies on that domain to work correctly, so if that link is broken, the program is also broken.

You're quite amusing Quitch.

As a "new" user of PAMM, I have no knowledge that that is indeed a false positive. As far as I'm concerned, Bitdefender is doing its job, it's protecting my computer from something nefarious disguised as something not nefarious, I therefore remove the mod (or if I'm suitably computer illiterate, I just think the mod is broken because the modder was incompetent). That gets repeated a couple of thousand times in a large modding community, and suddenly there is a very specific demographic who isn't using the mod.

It's Raevn's responsibility to keep on top of the false positives. If his software is not compatible with commercially available software, it's his responsibility to figure out why. The fix is as simple as contacting Bitdefender and getting them to solve the issue. It is however his responsibility to do so. So no, my software is not at fault. Bitdefender cannot be expected to investigate every single positive as a false positive. Nor can every user of a mod be expected to solve problems they are experiencing with their mod themselves. If PAMM is repetitively incompatible with BD, which seems to be the case, it actually is Raevn's responsibility to keep on top of that.

My software caused the problem, but my software causes problems with "nefarious" software by design, so it is working perfectly. The problem ultimately does lie in the fact that PAMM is not nefarious, so yes, PAMM did cause the problem.

I wouldn't say it is his responsibility, it is a failure of your chosen software. Everything he does here is unpaid work that benefits the community.

False negatives are not "working perfectly". I find it curious that you are ok with BitDefender being wrong, and instead choose to blame what is essentially an innocent victim (PAMM) for that wrong instead.

You're right that BitDefender can't be expected to know about false positives automagically, and that I as the author of the affected software should contact them (which I had already done). But your posts clearly show a belief that BitDefender have done no wrong here, and that malware scanners should be absolved of any responsibility. Your post above outlining the experience an non-computer-literate person would have as a result of this false positive is actually an excellent example of why malware scanning programs should be held to an even higher standard than they are, and just how bad a false positive actually is for a malware scanner to make. False positives can seriously affect other applications adversely, precisely because of this intrinsic belief that is held in their infallibility (which is dangerous, especially since false negatives exist too).

In short, the responsibility to report the issue lies with me; the blame though quite clearly lies with them, because they ultimately did something wrong (and the fact that they reversed it proves this). A malware scanner is a tool, not a guarantee - people shouldn't have as much faith in them as they do, and when they do detect something, it shouldn't be blindly believed without a little research.

users who download PAMM are going to be getting it from here, they come back to here and ask why it is doing that, i have used loads of tools in the past that are goodware but get detected (typically its the packer again)

the issue with the site is that there is no content on there so it may get marked as malware domain, put some content on it
picking up the installer as bad file (not the contents), easily fixed just use a packer that not used by basic virus makers (as thats what norton was pick up on my end)

at the moment i see 2 warnings on VT from obscure antivirus never heard of before, and the domain is coming back as clean

well said

[RANT]
Wooooooooooooooooow, so much self entitlement here ...

Like ZaphodX said, this ain't a commercial software / service you're paying for, he's doing an great job on his spare time to provide us an awesome tool, and simply for that you should show him some gratitudes, instead of making claims you have absolutely no rights to make ...
At best you can report the issue, once.

I personally had the same issue with Kaspersky Internet Security, yet I added the domain / file to the exclusion list. Should I jump on the conclusion that you failed to choose an adequate security solution ? No.

Sorry to add pollution to the thread, but this had to be said, it's that kind of attitude that drives away skilled people with a lot of goodwill out of the community.
[/RANT]

Thanks again Raevn for such a great tool, keep going on

**** that, it doesn't even remember its previous size and position, this guy is such a fraud!

And if no action for which you are responsible occurs, the blame lies with you not BitDefender

The "action" you speak of is me needing to inform BitDefender of their mistake. If a bank charges you incorrectly, the bank is to blame, not the customer. Just because the customer needs to point out the mistake, it doesn't make them responsible.

Correct. The issue here is that you are the bank, I am the customer, and Bitdefender is some intermediary which is causing problems for both of us, like a skimmed ATM machine, or a merchant with a dodgy eftpos terminal. It is the banks responsibility to put the mistake right, irrespective of whether or not they actually caused the mistake. It is the merchants responsibility to act on the information they receive from either the bank or the customer, but clearly the bank can do it much more efficiently, as the customer does not necessarily know that it was the merchant who was at fault, or whether the problem was at the banks end. The customer contacts the bank, the bank acts on the customers behalf. And if you had such a bank that didn't act to correct erroneous transactions, that would be an amazingly scumbag bank.

Disclaimer: Not calling you a scumbag.

It's his responsibility to ensure his mod works as intended for all users of that mod, and to note incompatibilities that are beyond his control in the mods documentation. The latter is not occurring XD.

That logic is flawed. If raevn is a bank offering a service then Bitdefnder is not an ATM machine or the like, since an ATM is part of the bank. Bitdefender is not part of pamm at all. It's more like a bitdefender is a 3rd party security company that YOU hired to protect you from thieves and they block you from entering the bank because they (falsely!) think the bank is skimming you. However since the bank is indeed clean it is kinda your fault for hiring such a bad security company and all the bank can do (and has done) is to go and ask the security company to recheck the situation.

That's impossible. Too many potentially incompatible things out there. Also he actually is not responsible of anything, as he is not payed for this at all.

BNZ Banks don't own Westpac ATMs however. So that logic is not flawed.


Raevn has a vested interest in his own project, he invests time into managing it. For fun. He has more of an interest than someone who is merely paid to maintain the project

And that's why he did contact Bitdefender. Not much more he can do about people installing 3rd party software that breaks his work.

No matter if the bank owns the ATM or rents it or whatever, the ATM is part of the service of a bank. A 3rd party security company that is hired by the customer has nothing to do with the bank. The customer hired it, not the bank.

What is all this about businesses and customers? How much did you pay for this service?

why so much fuss over bitdefender blocking the domain just add it to the whitelist

this is not raevns issue any way its the automated system that bitdefender that is the issue here

I couldn't add it to whitelist. The domain is not mentioned in the documentation for the mod.

I agree, why so much fuss? I made a perfectly valid request, Raevn acted in response to that, and despite the fact that he has already taken responsibility for fixing the issue, everyman and his dog is telling me that installing a different antivirus is a valid solution?

I'm sorry, but if PA is going to do well as a mod platform, a certain level of professionalism is expected from the modders. There is a very large jump to make from 60,000 unique downloads to 8 million.

It's really not an acceptable solution (asking people to uninstall stuff causing clashes). What happens when mods start causing clashes with each other? Is it my responsibility to rewrite Commander Health Display so that it doesn't break? Or is it Ubers responsibility to rewrite PA so that comm health. Display works again?

I see that we have two versions of PAMm, one for Mac, one for Windows. But isn't the solution for the user to install the compatible operating system, or for Apple/Microsoft to rewrite their end so this mod works?

Sorry but in the general case, the clash between a mod and commercial software really is not acceptable, and I'm pleased Raevn is taking responsibility for fixing the issue.

Correct, good. But I'm not responding to him. I'm responding to the people who are telling me that I need to troubleshoot the issue by switching antivirus. That's equivalent to telling people they should switch to using Windows instead of Mac. It is not a professional solution for the developer to implement.

correct. But this is the atm that is having the issue. The exact issue is that PAMM cannot communicate with the user because the communication between the user and the bank is broken at the ATM.

I don't believe I've taken responsibility; all I did was point out to BitDefender that they made a mistake. They had to then take responsibility and fix it. How can I take responsibility for a bug in another program?

I do wish to clarify that I'm not suggesting to install a different AV product, since it's a possible inherent problem with all AV products that use heuristics. All I want to get across is that false positives are bugs, and just because BitDefender don't tend to act on them unless notified, does not make it any less their responsibility. There is literally nothing I can do to my program to get it to work if BitDefender flags it, it's all their end. If there was some compatibility workaround or flags I could set to mark it as safe, then I would agree that it was my responsibility to include those, but that isn't the case here.

This isn't the right way to look at it though, because it's not broken at the ATM, it's broken at the 3rd party company. PAMM works; then add in the 3rd party software, and it breaks. It's the 3rd party software that's breaking it, not PAMM intrinsically.

To put it another way, a user can go in and manually delete some of then files that PAMM uses, and PAMM would break. Is this PAMMs fault or the users? Now replace "manually delete some of the files" with "a 3rd party software blocking some of the files", and you have the same situation.