Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 345 posts

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#221

Post by aceazzameen »

There's a group policy to prevent this in Win 10 Pro. Although, I haven't tested it with this issue.

Open Group Policy Editor, then:

Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Microsoft Defender Antivirus > Turn off routine remediation

Enable "Turn off remediation"

Policy description:

    "This policy setting allows you to configure whether Microsoft Defender Antivirus automatically takes action on all detected threats. The action to be taken on a particular threat is determined by the combination of the policy-defined action, user-defined action, and the signature-defined action.

    If you enable this policy setting, Microsoft Defender Antivirus does not automatically take action on the detected threats, but prompts users to choose from the actions available for each threat.

    If you disable or do not configure this policy setting, Microsoft Defender Antivirus automatically takes action on all detected threats after a nonconfigurable delay of approximately five seconds."

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#222

Post by paulmd »

willis936 wrote: post #131
gruez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and you start to uncover Windows annoyances that you never knew existed because you were used to them and conditioned into thinking they were normal for so long ..which promptly get replaced with mac annoyances. Random ones off the top of my head: * closing a window (using the red x icon) doesn't close the app * overwriting a folder deletes existing contents, rather than merging them * weird scroll acceleration that…

>* overwriting a folder deletes existing contents, rather than merging them Wait. If there truly is not a setting for this then it makes finder unusable as a file explorer and arguably the entire OS. Recursive merge is one of the most fundamental things a personal computer does.

that's the pretty standard behavior on unix. Unless the window manager goes out of its way to override it, mv'ing a folder to a place where one already exists will replace the old folder with the new one.

You can go out of your way to do it manually with rsync and similar tools, of course, but by default you're moving directory pointers around, not merging trees.

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#223

Post by zamadatix »

sslayer wrote: post #23
moss2 wrote: post #17

Switching my home computer to Linux has had its problems since I'm an avid gamer, but the more news I read about Windows the less I regret that decision.

I ditched in the middle of Windows 7, with absolutely no regrets. Valve has made tremendous inroads in gaming with Proton, along with developers releasing for Linux, there really isn't a good excuse to stay with Microsoft.

Valve has made it so Linux is finally back to the point "Linux has games it can run that I can play" but it's still a far cry from reaching "Games that I play I can run on Linux".

For some it's not a problem but for those that play games from developers which use kernel level anti-cheat Proton isn't a be-all-end-all that Linux is now ready to migrate to.

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#224

Post by gruez »

e3bc54b2 wrote: post #196
gruez wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I was told I was making stuff up and/or this is in 'best interest' I read the comment thread. It's unclear which comment said that you were "making stuff up". There's also zero matches for "best interest" (your direct quote). >that this only happens because these are 'uncommon applications'. Relatively speaking, winmerge and kdiff3 are quite uncommon, compared to the normal stuff that people have installed on their…

I admit and apologize for salty tone above. It is not very constructive, and I agree, and would like to elaborate. This isn't the first time such thing has happened and it won't be last. Windows has becoming more and more painful as Operating System as in operating the machine and has been trying to operate the user instead. The incidents I mentioned about Winmerge and Kdiff3 did happen with me and I stand by that. A…

>You must be able to realise that it is not exactly presented in such manner as to be "unknown". Unknown would simply mean windows doesn't know about it and its upto user's discretion. Microsoft, by virtue of all the telemetry, happen to know that this application is uncommon. Why not say that? Why not let the user decide whether they want to run an uncommon app?

But seems pretty close to what they're doing? I don't feel like downloading random shady programs to get the UI to show up, so I'll base my analysis off the screenshots from this page: http://www.rawinfopages.com/tips/2014/10/unblock-programs-bl...

1. the prompt says the app is "unrecognized"

2. the prompt says running the app "might put your PC at risk". I'm presuming that's what you meant by "dangerous", but that's not exactly the same thing.

3. The default option is indeed "don't run", and you do have to click on the non-obvious "more info" link for the "run" to show up, but this seems like a reasonable trade-off. Otherwise users might instinctive click "run" and ignore the warning.

>This, along with Microsoft's position ends up being (in my humble opinion) an abuse of powerful position. And that, again, in my own humble opinion is unacceptable in being defended.

In other words, "I'm so confident that I'm correct and microsoft is so powerful that I think it's unacceptable for people to present arguments to the contrary?

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#225

Post by crazygringo »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #190
crazygringo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. By that logic, what are firefighters doing but censoring homes? What are koalas but a form of eucalyptus censorship? What is locking your front door but a form of censoring burglars? No, just no. Censorship is preventing the transmission of ideas , nothing more, nothing less. Deleting a file has nothing to do with transmission, and it's being done in response to a perceived threat, not its commun…

...I'm less sure of this. If Windows Defender was deleting any file named "Animal Farm.txt", that would be a form of censorship, right? It's preventing the transmission of a piece of political literature. Now, what if it was deleting "Animal Farm - The Video Game.exe"? Now, what if it was deleting the keygen for "Animal Farm - The Video Game"? What if the activation server for that game had gone offline, and this key…

No, it depends on the intent.

If the intent is to prevent the transmission of ideas, then yes it's censorship.

If the intent is to protect from harm -- totally unconnected to ideas -- then no it's not censorship.

The reason Defender deletes keygens is that they're statistically associated with malware and viruses, as any Google search will terrifyingly immediately reveal. It clearly is falling under the "protect from harm" category as it's designed to do.

But so to answer your question clearly: deleting "Animal Farm.txt" because of the ideas inside is censorship (prevents it being transmitted). The video game would similarly be censorship if based on its content. But if it's deleting all keygens, regardless of content of their associated video games, then clearly not censorship.

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#226

Post by zabatuvajdka »

chabad360 wrote: post #184
zabatuvajdka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting ideas here: how antivirus becomes a form of censorship. Maybe that’s an extreme view but it feels like now that Microsoft supplies it’s own defender app. And like all forms of martial law beginning as a way to protect citizens! I also noticed that with win10 when apps crash it sends the data to Microsoft—as though they can fix 3rd party apps for us. Yeesh. I think I’ll skip out on Windows 11 TYVM.

You should probably research how the crash reporting works, but the gist of it is (iirc) companies can register their software with Microsoft and get these crash reports sent to them.

The problem is that if you’re using a 3rd party app that IS NOT registered, it still sends the crash info to Microsoft.

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#227

Post by zamadatix »

pebble wrote: post #123
sslayer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ditched in the middle of Windows 7, with absolutely no regrets. Valve has made tremendous inroads in gaming with Proton, along with developers releasing for Linux, there really isn't a good excuse to stay with Microsoft.

Can you watch youtube videos with hardware acceleration yet?

Facetious question but for a genuine response: Firefox yes, your distro's Chromium package yes, but Chrome proper is still refusing to enable it though (they allowed you to toggle it for a bit after 88 the retracted that in 91).

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#228

Post by smt88 »

mkw2000 wrote: post #207
smt88 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly hyperbolic. If you don't like Defender's default behavior (which is sane for the 99.999% of users who are not devs), turn it off or use a different OS.

Is it? I've personally seen it label keygen type files (with no malware whatsoever) as dangerous more times than I can count. It's false and misleading and I don't see why they couldn't pull the same shit with anything else.

Windows is a consumer/business product. For the vast, vast majority of its customers, keygen files are going to be malware.

It would only be censorship if you didn't have a choice to avoid Defender, and you obviously do, or if Microsoft had some sort of political interest in suppressing files named keygen.exe.

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#229

Post by zabatuvajdka »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #195
zabatuvajdka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting ideas here: how antivirus becomes a form of censorship. Maybe that’s an extreme view but it feels like now that Microsoft supplies it’s own defender app. And like all forms of martial law beginning as a way to protect citizens! I also noticed that with win10 when apps crash it sends the data to Microsoft—as though they can fix 3rd party apps for us. Yeesh. I think I’ll skip out on Windows 11 TYVM.

Re crash data: MS actually provides crash data to 3rd party providers who set things up correctly. So if you have a desktop app you don't need to roll your own crash collecting system if Winqual [0] is enough. Apps that roll their own (like chrome and 100s of other crashpad based apps) usually disable MS error reporting for their executables. Also MS does ship shims for popular 3rd party apps that don't fix themselve…

The problem is that if you’re using a 3rd party app that IS NOT registered, it still sends the crash info to Microsoft.

They should create some better apps to manage/configure that stuff. All I see as a user is when any app crashes it gets sent to Microsoft.

Re: Windows Defender blocks qBittorrent

#230

Post by crazygringo »

tomc1985 wrote: post #219
crazygringo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. By that logic, what are firefighters doing but censoring homes? What are koalas but a form of eucalyptus censorship? What is locking your front door but a form of censoring burglars? No, just no. Censorship is preventing the transmission of ideas , nothing more, nothing less. Deleting a file has nothing to do with transmission, and it's being done in response to a perceived threat, not its commun…

I think you are holding far too strict a definition of the word related to "transmission". If I am prevented from reading data I want to read, because some entity has decided they don't want me to read it, how is that not censorship? Also, where are you even getting that defintion anyway? Looking up nearly every form of the word 'censor' I can think of, nothing speaks specifically to the transmission of ideas. Rather…

> If I am prevented from reading data I want to read... how is that not censorship?

Of course it's censorship, they're preventing it from being transmitted to you. That's what I said.

> Also, where are you even getting that defintion anyway?

Literally the first sentence of the Wikipedia article [1]:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information."

Speech and communication are transmission. There's no such thing as speech or communication with only a single party involved, as generally understood.

And no -- anti-virus is not voluntary censorship because it's not censorship at all. It's protection from harm, not a shield from comunicative ideas. If anti-virus were "voluntary censorship" then locking your home from burglars would be too. And that twists the word beyond any recognizable or useful meaning.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Post reply on HN