Jump to content
ATX Community

Window 10 blocking ATX max install


Recommended Posts

I am trying to install 2016 ATX max in my laptop with Window 10. The program is downloading but when I try to install it Window 10 will not let me install it. The message is coming up that you are trying to install a program whose identity is unknown and it may harm your computer and it will not let me move forward.

How do I get around this problem.

Thanks for your help.

Naveen Mohan 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Naveen,

 

Did you try turning off the automatically installed Windows Defender program before trying to install ATX?  The message you are getting is the one generated by that program.  You can turn it off by going into Windows settings, then security, and then accessing the Windows Defender program.

Hope this helps.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post an image of the error message.  Could be ab over zealous "security" software setting.  Could be the setup file is not signed by the creator, and the message is simply a warning.

"Security" programs have a financial interest in reminding you they are "saving" you from harm.  They have no incentive to actually be accurate.

If you are the one initiating the installation, from a vendor you trust, turn off the security software and install.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use an ATX sister product (TaxWise from a third-party reseller)  We were instructed NOT to download the software from the CCH site because the security signing was incorrect and installation would not go smoothly.  Signing to be corrected in next revision.  Sounds consistent and maybe even true.

 

Don in Upstate NY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2016 at 1:30 PM, Don in Upstate NY said:

I use an ATX sister product (TaxWise from a third-party reseller)  We were instructed NOT to download the software from the CCH site because the security signing was incorrect and installation would not go smoothly.  Signing to be corrected in next revision.  Sounds consistent and maybe even true.

 

Don in Upstate NY

I'd like to know how something like that gets by QA.  How is it the software isn't installed by someone on a freshly imaged machine to verify it installs and runs at the very least before making it available to the public?  That's incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally:

Install files can be digitally signed, or not signed.  It is, in theory, a way to show the file was not altered from upload.  Signing used to prevent an on screen message saying the file could not be identified, now a message is shown either way.  Since MANY do not want to pay for the digital certificate, many files, and safe ones, are not signed, making the "security" of a signed file moot.  Since the old certificate system is known to be suspect, dual signing a file is not a good option.  Nefarious folks can get a digital certificate too, so the signing is not all that valuable.

Also, the signing code was changed to something more secure.  If using an old browser, the old browser cannot recognize the current certificate, causing more messages.  For business purposes, one should not be using an old OS or browser, but it happens.  Some simply do not feel staying current by spending a few hundred dollars is worth it.  I even hear from business people saying they cannot afford a new computer every three or four years.

Then, there are the "security" programs which take money to protect the user from themselves.  They fail miserably, with a large number of false positives, to a point where one has to know how to disable the "security" to install programs they want to.  If the "security" program has to be disabled, it is not worth using.  (The culprit is not catching known issues, it is when the "security" program is set to guess at some problem which has never existed. Guessing wrong actually makes the "security" vendor more money, since it appears they are doing something to keep you safe. In other words, the "security" vendors have a negative incentive to be accurate.)

So, our files are not nefarious, and are digitally signed.  Using Virustotal, they are shown as clean as well, other the random false positive of a few really sloppy "security" software vendors.  Virustotal is a great resource, since it checks a file against ~60 "security" vendors.

There are folks who never update their "security" software, so while the "security" vendor's current status is clean, the old non updated program shows an issue.  I get a call that our software is dangerous.

There are "security" programs which will download a file, then delete it, without forcing the user to make a choice, or even warn them.  I then get a call saying our download does not work.

With XP and Vista, and.or a non current browser, our file does not appear to be signed, since the old OS/browser cannot read the new safer signature, which is another call.

From the OP "identity is unknown and it may harm your computer", the implication is the file is not signed at all, or the OP is using an outdated OS or browser.  It also does not imply the OP cannot ignore or skip past the warning, since it says "may".  That is typical of an unsigned file, or an old OS/browser.  If they did have some sort of certificate issue, then there likely would be more reports of an issue.  I can only guess, since I am not ATX, nor have I seen an image of the actual message.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...