Community
Remote Camera
Links used in this discussion
Thank you for your message.
You are right. But the bad guys never actually use the official version. Instead, they patch the official version and have the banner removed. I that got us into a lot of trouble with antivirus software in the past. So we decided to remove this feature altogether.Why? It can't be privacy concerns since you have the banner displaying while it's active.
I am sorry that this made the program less useful for you. Alas, privacy and security considerations and good terms with antivirus software are our primary concerns.
Let me know if you have other questions.
I understand your concerns, but you already let the cat out of the bag. If they are going to use the patched versions, then how is discontinuing the feature going to stop them? They'll just do what I have to do know, use an older version. Seems to me that you are just hurting the people that are using it legally, not stopping anything.
As for the AV companies, let them stop the patched versions. As they should. They should only be whitelisting the legitimate version's signature. All other variants should be considered as unsafe. It's not your problem/fault that someone else is hacking your application. If the AV companies banned every application that was hacked, then no Microsoft app would ever pass their tests. Especially since MS products have been used as an attack vector since the beginning. Let the AV company do their job and block the proper signatures instead of just blacklisting your app. Seems like laziness on their part.
Ultimately, this is your call, but if we removed a feature from an application every time someone has an issue with it, we wouldn't have any applications. Someone always has an issue with something, even if it's legitimate or the mass likes it.
I'm really disappointed that you are removing a very useful feature. I hope you reconsider. You really shouldn't let other companies dictated how you design your product. You should listen to your users and base your decisions on their input. They are what matters, not other companies. The AV companies have no say and should do their job and filter the hacked versions, not the legitimate one.
You are absolutely right. If only that would be that easy though. Some antivirus software companies are clearly out of sync with reality.As for the AV companies, let them stop the patched versions. As they should. They should only be whitelisting the legitimate version's signature. All other variants should be considered as unsafe. It's not your problem/fault that someone else is hacking your application. If the AV companies banned every application that was hacked, then no Microsoft app would ever pass their tests. Especially since MS products have been used as an attack vector since the beginning. Let the AV company do their job and block the proper signatures instead of just blacklisting your app. Seems like laziness on their part.
If this is a prominent feature used by most customers, yes. Unfortunately, we cannot say that about remote camera. This is more like a side feature that has never been supposed to be used in a corporate environment. Please, do understand our point - we are a commercial entity and we must care about our sales. If certain feature brings us trouble with a/v companies (yes, they are what they are - this world isn't ideal) we have to discontinue it.Ultimately, this is your call, but if we removed a feature from an application every time someone has an issue with it, we wouldn't have any applications. Someone always has an issue with something, even if it's legitimate or the mass likes it.
Please, tell that to ESET who (as of this date 26 Oct, 2018) refuses to remove their "unsafe" detection of our product for almost three years, despite all our emails and phone calls to their headquarters in Slovakia and in other countries.The AV companies have no say and should do their job and filter the hacked versions, not the legitimate one.
* Website time zone: America/New_York (UTC -4)