Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

New GUI Software V1.02

it doesn't works in belgium in europe
i have download (version v 1.02 ) on yuneec 's site the software and with windows 10 it doesn't works for information
best regards
rubens
 
The one on the Yuneec USA site is clean. Ver 1.2 (or 1.02).

Several of us have tried it. Works fine except it reports that the IP Module (part of RealSense) is not working. This is in error.
 
The one on the Yuneec USA site is clean. Ver 1.2 (or 1.02).

Several of us have tried it. Works fine except it reports that the IP Module (part of RealSense) is not working. This is in error.
Oh, the "IPS fail" message is a coding error? Good to know, I posted earlier that I got that message but no one replied to it - thanks.
 
The one on the Yuneec USA site is clean. Ver 1.2 (or 1.02).

Several of us have tried it. Works fine except it reports that the IP Module (part of RealSense) is not working. This is in error.

"clean" or not, Avast say it's infected with the Win32.Sality virus (a pretty nasty one). Same for the prior version. It's not the main file that is alarming, but the 32bit virtual COM port driver under it. Until Yuneec addresses and corrects this (whether by correction of code that may be causing a false alarm, consultation with Avast or a driver publisher, or removal of an actual virus), I will not be using this software on any system that I care about. It'll run only on a small, non-networked, unconnected, unprotected netbook that I can restore from an Acronis image in 5 minutes when I'm done. I have called this to their attention in the past and gotten only "oh, that's a false alarm". Very reassuring (not!). So far, this is my only real complaint with Yuneec; not taking a virus report on something they offer for download seriously.

Also, since the 64-bit driver does NOT alarm, I have no problem installing and running this on a 64-bit system, after destroying the 32-bit file.

/e - clarification of specific file causing alarm, last paragraph added
 
Last edited:
"clean" or not, Avast say it's infected with the Win32.Sality virus (a pretty nasty one). Same for the prior version. It's not the main file that is alarming, but one of the 32bit drivers under it. Until Yuneec addresses and corrects this (whether by correction of code that may be causing a false alarm, consultation with Avast or a driver publisher, or removal of an actual virus), I will not be using this software on any system that I care about. It'll run only on a small, non-networked, unconnected, unprotected netbook that I can restore from an Acronis image in 5 minutes when I'm done. I have called this to their attention in the past and gotten only "oh, that's a false alarm". Very reassuring (not!). So far, this is my only real complaint with Yuneec; not taking a virus report on something they offer for download seriously.

False positives exist. I use AVG antivirus and haven't got any virus detected on either versions. If you are not sure you are getting a false positive you can scan the file with a different antivirus.
 
False positives exist. I use AVG antivirus and haven't got any virus detected on either versions. If you are not sure you are getting a false positive you can scan the file with a different antivirus.
I am well aware of false positives. This is why I complained to Yuneec and am annoyed that it isn't taken seriously. I've also sent it to Avast for analysis (last August) and it still alarms. It also alarms under Nano and Cloudstrike Falcon. This is why it won't be run on a connected system. 50+ other scanners do not alarm (www.virustotal.com). This is why it IS allowed to run on an isolated machine.

If you want to see the virustotal results, here they are:
Antivirus scan for 1f9e78c3f00b77b9ca1e799af639af80d4f25ab5719dcb64deda9aead51ffb15 at 2017-04-09 15:37:24 UTC - VirusTotal

/e - On a side note, another antivirus failing to alarm does not automatically mean the first was a false. It could also mean that the second is not as good at detection. Perhaps not the case here, but that is a dangerous mindset to fall into.
 
Last edited:
I am well aware of false positives. This is why I complained to Yuneec and am annoyed that it isn't taken seriously. I've also sent it to Avast for analysis (last August) and it still alarms. It also alarms under Nano and Cloudstrike Falcon. This is why it won't be run on a connected system. 50+ other scanners do not alarm (www.virustotal.com). This is why it IS allowed to run on an isolated machine.

If you want to see the virustotal results, here they are:
Antivirus scan for 1f9e78c3f00b77b9ca1e799af639af80d4f25ab5719dcb64deda9aead51ffb15 at 2017-04-09 15:37:24 UTC - VirusTotal

/e - On a side note, another antivirus failing to alarm does not automatically mean the first was a false. It could also mean that the second is not as good at detection. Perhaps not the case here, but that is a dangerous mindset to fall into.

Good to see someone who takes care of their system, you go and do whatever makes you feel safe.

I just think its kind of limiting to expect every single antivirus out there to show a file is Clean before using it. If a couple major antivirus say its ok (lets say for example Symantec and McAfee, which have Win32:Sality on their database and both are not detecting it) then I'd go with it.

Greetings!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rayray
It is important to remember that virtually all malware detections these days are based on reputation and heuristics, i.e. where did the software get downloaded from/how many people are using it, and how does the software behave? The former guards against malware spreading through cracking sites, polymorphic viruses and targeted attacks, while the latter guards against malware that appears to do something useful but also has a second, hidden purpose. Attributing a name to a heuristic detection can be challenging, and it is not uncommon for security software companies to paint with a broad brush and for completely different files to be caught by a generic signature.

I have received two warnings in the last month when downloading updates of software I own. One is a raw photo editor, the other was GUI v1.02. The detection for GUI (just like the detection for the new raw photo editor) was based on reputation because there were few computers at the time on which the binary with that SHA256 hash had been encountered, and the download was automatically quarantined. I restored the file and installed it, and GUI hasn't been convicted yet based on its behavior. I have no concern about running it on my laptop.

Full disclosure: I am a software engineer working on security software.
 
I got excited and peed my pants because I thought they finally created one for MAC! :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jester

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,952
Messages
241,578
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval