Resident Evil 6 System Api.dll 91 UPDATED
Fix: First pass problem is a code bug - not sure if this would've shown up in gcc 3.x if Valve didn't use the horribly evil -w option, but it certainly looks like invalid code to reference a friend function without a declaration.
resident evil 6 system api.dll 91
AVG is allowing me to choose to ignore the threat, but it still stops me from extracting the files. While I can disable the resident shield, soethign else blocks the extraciton which i cannot disable.
And then, the antivirus software detects the function in your software that reads passwords, and then it thinks it is some sort of evil password-stealer software, and then it classifies it as a generic trojan or something like that.
After all this I could select the PST file, see the passwords and save them as a txt file, without any problem.So, what I suggest is that you remove these access requests for changing the registry, using dwmapi.dll or the search indexer, because apparently it is not needed. Removing that would reduce the false positives, I think. And I take the opportunity to ask you: why are these permissions needed for the program to run?Thanx!
I too suffer from constant FALSE POSITIVES around the Nirsoft products. It is unacceptable that these AV companies, Microsoft SCCM being the problem for me, will not fix these problems. Someone needs to contact the US attorney general and demand that they sue them for defamation of character and publishing false information about their products. Should be an easy win. There is a ton of evidence, 7 years worth in these comments alone to provide prof positive that they are nefariously defaming your reputation and that of NirSoft for continuing to falsely accuse developers like NirSoft of putting out evil viruses when in fact they do not. Anyone out there know any good lawyers, maybe a class action suit on the AV companies, starting with Microsoft, A US company. Any suit on them will get noticed and will get air/print time in the media. It should also earn a lot of money for the Lawyer with the guts and courage to go after them.
Having entrenched its operating systems monopoly, Microsoft has aggressively leveraged this monopoly to gain a monopoly in business applications. In 1991, Microsoft's senior vice-president Mike Maples expressly stated the company's intention to monopolize the software applications market:
During the very same time period that the Government contends Microsoft was using "anticompetitive licensing tactics" to harm OS competitors, applications competitors repeatedly complained that Microsoft was using its knowledge of new operating system features to give its own applications programs a head start and performance advantage over applications competitors. As stated in Section II of this memorandum, throughout the 1980's and early 1990's Microsoft responded to this criticism by asserting that it had erected a "Chinese Wall" between its operating system developers and applications developers. According to Steve Ballmer, the senior vice-president for Microsoft's system divisions:
Microsoft has even bundled technology into its operating system that it misappropriated from its competitors. When Microsoft wanted to add data compression capabilities to DOS, for example, it approached Stac Electronics, developer of the industry's leading data compression software. Microsoft demanded a worldwide license to use Stac's software as part of DOS, but "steadfastly refused . . . to pay Stac any royalty for [its] patented data-compression technology."79 When Stac refused Microsoft's demand, Microsoft simply incorporated Stac's intellectual property directly into DOS. Id. Stac brought suit and a federal jury found Microsoft guilty of infringing Stac's data compression patents and awarded Stac $120 million in damages.80 Microsoft thereafter settled the case by acquiring a 15 % interest in Stac, and obtained a license to Stac's vital data compression technology for a fraction of the jury's verdict.81 Because Microsoft's conduct in the Stac case "underscore[s] the sort of allegations that have kept the [Government's antitrust investigation] alive for years," some observers have suggested that the timing of Microsoft's settlement with Stac m late June 1994 was calculated to "remove [Stac president Gary] Clow as a hostile witness in the Justice investigation."82
103 See also Stuart J. Johnston, Decree: Deal or Dodge?, Computerworld, July 25, 1994 ("Interviews with PC hardware vendors last week indicated few are likely to switch to a competing system any time soon. 'Customers have already voted with their dollars in a very strong way for DOS and Windows. I don't see that changing,' said Howard Elias, a vice president at AST Research, [a leading OEM].") Jane Morrissey, DOJ Accord Fosters 'Too Little, Too Late' Perception, PC Week, July 25, 1994, at 1 ("[O]bservers doubt the consent decree agreed on will have much effect on the company or its competitors," because it is "too little, too late. "); Jesse Berst, Behind The Smoke: Microsoft Wins Again, PC Week, July 25, 1994, at 106 ("Does the agreement really change anything? No .... If the decree had come five years ago, when there were viable MS-DOS clones, it might have had some immediate impact. Now, in a world where MS-DOS is on the way out and Windows has no real clones, it will have no short-term impact") (Ex. 27); Andrew Schulman, Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, Oct. 1994, supra, at 143 ("the change from per-processor to per-copy licensing probably comes about four years too late"); Claudia Maclachlan, Software Makers Mull Over Microsoft Legal Challenge, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, at B1 ("They can't do [original equipment manufacturer] pricing, but they don't need it anymore.")
106 See, e.g., David Einstein, S.F. Chronicle, July 18, 1994, supra, at A1 (Ex. 32) (Ernie Simpson, president of a software company which develops programs for use with Windows, called the decree "a waste of time"); Quote of the Week, InformationWeek, Aug. 1, 1994, at 10 (Reacting to the proposed decree, Gordon Eubanks, CEO of software firm Symantec Corp., said simply, "That's it?"); John Markoff, N.Y. Times, July 18, 1994, supra, at D1 (Ex. 24) (quoting Martin Goetz, cofounder of Applied Data Research, the nation's first software company, as saying of the decree, "The Justice Department hasn't listened to the cries of the software companies"); Jane Morrissey, PC Week, July 25, 1994, supra, at 1 (Ex. 26) (quoting Mitchell Kertzman, chairman of Powersoft Corp., as saying the proposed decree will have "close to zero impact," and that "to the extent that Microsoft's behavior prevented other operating systems from succeeding, the war is over ... DOS is it and Windows is it"); Andrew Schulman, Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, Oct. 1994, supra, at 143 (Ex. 13) (quoting spokesman for Compaq as saying "Windows is the standard--not much will change"). See also David Einstein, S.F. Chronicle, July 18, 1994, supra, at A1 (Ex, 32) (quoting a leading industry analyst as concluding that "[t]he operating system wars are over -- Microsoft is the winner ... Microsoft is the Standard Oil of its day"); Claudia Maclachlan, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, supra, at B1 ("As long as [Microsoft has] a dominant position in operating systems ... it allows them to leverage that into applications. This agreement does nothing to the status quo") (internal quotations omitted).
Microsoft's bundling scheme has caused America Online president Steve Case to cry foul, accusing Microsoft of creating an "unlevel playing field." Others in the online industry agree. Robert D. Mainor, vice president of Product Marketing for CompuServe, didn't go as far as Case in criticizing the Microsoft announcement, but he did say that "Microsoft enjoys a distribution model that no one else has access to." He added that his service, in business for about 15 years, is in a good position to compete with Microsoft. If CompuServe's claim of 2.4 million members is accurate, it is currently the largest online service.
Prodigy's president, Ross Glatzer, said that Microsoft's entry will help expand the total online market. However, he agrees that Microsoft has its thumb on the scale. Glatzer would welcome the opportunity to include Prodigy and other online service software with Windows 95 so that users would have free choice of services.
The software battle pits three leading developers -- Microsoft, Digital Research, and VisiCorp -- against one another. Each wants its product to become the industry standard. The competition is especially fierce, because windowing programs are expected to be standard on every personal computer -- a market potential of as many as 5 million units in 1984 alone. "Environments used to feature, but now they have become a fundamental part of the [personal comter] system," says Esther Dyson, president of Rosen Research Inc.
The battle lines are forming rapidly. On Nov. 10, Microsoft Corp. was expected to announce that 23 computer makers -- including Apple, Digital Equipment Honeywell, Tandy, and Texas Instruments -- have signed up to muse its version of the new software, which it says will be ready by April. Meanwhile, VisiCorp, the first software company to offer this next-generation product to the industry, is racing to get its VisiOn program out the door (page 115). Not to be left out, Digital Research Inc., which has not yet demonstrated its product, is leaking word that it will begin delivering its version of environment software to as many as 10 computer makers before the end of the year. "It's a real battle of the software developers," says Steven A. Ballmer, a vice-president at Microsoft.
While archrival Digital Research has not formally announced its environment package, the company is working hard to line up applications software companies to write programs for use with its new windowing software. Digital Re search says its environment package is the safest choice, because the company does not write applications software. "We're not in the applications business like VisiCorp or Microsoft," says Digital Research President John R. Rowley. "We do not present a threat."