Window event example doesn't work

Problem
Window event example doesn't work.
Steps To Reproduce
cargo init
cargo add dioxus --features desktop

// main.rs

use dioxus::prelude::*;

fn main() {
    dioxus::desktop::launch_cfg(app, |cfg| {
        cfg.with_window(|w| w.with_title("My title").with_decorations(false))
    });
}

fn app(cx: Scope) -> Element {
    let window = dioxus::desktop::use_window(&cx);

    cx.render(rsx! {
        div {
            "Hello, world!"
        }
    })
}

cargo run

Expected behavior
Application to run and show "Hello, world!"
Actual behavior
error[E0425]: cannot find function `use_window` in crate `dioxus::desktop`
  --> src/main.rs:10:35
   |
10 |     let window = dioxus::desktop::use_window(&cx);
   |                                   ^^^^^^^^^^ not found in `dioxus::desktop`

Environment:

Dioxus version: [e.g. v0.17, master]
Rust version: [e.g. 1.43.0, nightly]
OS info: [e.g. MacOS]
App platform: [e.g. web, desktop]

Questionnaire

[ ] I'm interested in fixing this myself but don't know where to start
[ ] I would like to fix and I have a solution
[ ] I don't have time to fix this right now, but maybe later

Ah - examples on master are for the master branch. We're just about to release a new version of Dioxus with these new features, but the one on crates.io doesn't have these changes.

Cool cool, can you update/close this issue when it's released? My app is going to be heavily keyboard based and this is the most intriguing framework in rust so far :P

Cool cool, can you update/close this issue when it's released? My app is going to be heavily keyboard based and this is the most intriguing framework in rust so far :P

0.2.2 is out now :)

:D


Display a node's default identifier in output of ockam node create | show | list commands

Current Behaviour
Currently if you run ockam node create | show | list you see status output that looks like this:
> ockam node create

Node Created!

Node:
  Name: 2f92103a
  Status: Running
  API Address: <IP_ADDRESS>:60942
  Pid: 62535
  Worker count: 19
  Transport count: 1
  Log Path: /Users/mrinal/Library/Application Support/io.ockam.ockam-cli/node-2f92103a/2f92103a.log

When a node is created it also gets a default identity, which you can display as follows:
> ockam identity show --node 2f92103a
P5ea32d08fc46d8176abf6e0e80ba9b8b9604c24b3093f84131624f19e7e57b71

Desired Behavior
We would like to change this to:
> ockam node create

Node Created!

Node:
  Name: 2f92103a
  Status: Running
  API Address: <IP_ADDRESS>:60942
  Default Identity: P5ea32d08fc46d8176abf6e0e80ba9b8b9604c24b3093f84131624f19e7e57b71
  Pid: 62535
  Worker count: 19
  Transport count: 1
  Log Path: /Users/mrinal/Library/Application Support/io.ockam.ockam-cli/node-2f92103a/2f92103a.log

Code for this is here https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/blob/develop/implementations/rust/ockam/ockam_command/src/node/show.rs#L33-L74

We love helping new contributors!
If you have questions or need help as you work on your first Ockam contribution, please leave a comment on this discussion.
If you're looking for other issues to contribute to, checkout issues labeled -  https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/labels/good first issue or https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/labels/help wanted

Tried submitting a pull request for the issue here
https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/pull/3113

Merged, thank you @SkoogJacob 🙏


Files in build folder get removed auomatically when I start my app again after closing my app and VS Code

Note: If you are having problems formatting your issue please refer to this article on using markdown in Github:
https://guides.github.com/features/mastering-markdown/
Note: for support questions, please use one of these channels:
https://forum.ionicframework.com/
http://ionicworldwide.herokuapp.com/
Short description of the problem:
So whenever I try to add static resources like images or .json in build folder , it works perfectly but when I close V.S Code and Ionic2 and then later reopen my project I see my files gone
What behavior are you expecting?
Steps to reproduce:

Add files in build folder and save in V.S Code
Close Ionic2 CLI and V.S Code
Reopen V.S Code files are gone

insert any relevant code between the above and below backticks

My Environment Info
Cordova CLI: 6.2.0
Ionic CLI Version: 2.0.0-beta.32
Ionic App Lib Version: 2.0.0-beta.18
OS:
Node Version: v5.11.1
Windows 10 64 bit
Other information: (e.g. stacktraces, related issues, suggestions how to fix, stackoverflow links, forum links, etc)
Which Ionic Version? 1.x or 2.x
Plunker that shows an example of your issue
For Ionic 1 issues - http://plnkr.co/edit/Xo1QyAUx35ny1Xf9ODHx?p=preview
For Ionic 2 issues - http://plnkr.co/edit/me3Uk0GKWVRhZWU0usad?p=preview
Run ionic info from terminal/cmd prompt: (paste output below)

Update: I found that if I keep files in www folder and not build , they seem to stay even after I reopen my project


meta node OOM in longevity test with shared source

Execution URL: https://buildkite.com/risingwave-test/longevity-test/builds/1357
Grafana: https://grafana.test.risingwave-cloud.xyz/d/EpkBw5W4k/risingwave-dev-dashboard?orgId=1&var-datasource=Prometheus: test-useast1-eks-a&from=1714670735000&to=1714714072000&var-namespace=usrlngvty-20240502-171919
Log: https://grafana.test.risingwave-cloud.xyz/d/liz0yRCZz1/log-search-dashboard?orgId=1&var-data_source=Logging: test-useast1-eks-a&from=1714670735000&to=1714714072000&var-namespace=usrlngvty-20240502-171919
Quite strange

This test is triggered with
ENABLE_CREATE_MV_NEXMARK_TABLE="false"
ENABLE_SHARED_SOURCE="true"

Hmmm, why meta node has hashjoin 🤣
https://buildkite.com/risingwave-test/generate-collapsed-heap-files/builds/48#018f3dbb-eecc-448c-b44e-d1e410383fb6
HEAPS_S3_URL="s3://test-useast1-mgmt-bucket-archiver/k8s/usrlngvty-20240502-171919/"
RW_VERSION="nightly-20240501"
INSTANCE_ARCH="x86"

Hmmm, from nexmark, I see no much difference for whether or not shared source is enabled. It may be possibly caused by ENABLE_CREATE_MV_NEXMARK_TABLE="false"

ColumnDesc of SouceBackfillNode is 300MB? 😮

@yezizp2012 not sure if you have any quick thoughts about this. 🤔

@yezizp2012 not sure if you have any quick thoughts about this. 🤔

ColumnDesc shouldn't be very large. The parallelism of shared source streaming job should be 1, right?

RW_META_STORE=postgresql seems ok...
https://buildkite.com/risingwave-test/longevity-test/builds/1400


Use test workflow

:100:
JOBS
✓ test / run in 1m0s (ID<PHONE_NUMBER>)
  ✓ Set up job
  ✓ Run actions/checkout@v2
  ✓ Run<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  ✓ Run actions/cache@v2
  ✓ Run r7kamura/rust-problem-matchers@v1
  - Run rustup component add rustfmt
  ✓ Run cargo build --all-features
  - Run rustup component add clippy
  - Run cargo test --all-features
  ✓ Post Run actions/cache@v2
  ✓ Post Run actions/checkout@v2
  ✓ Complete job

✓ Run test<PHONE_NUMBER>) completed with 'success'


Amortize the startup cost of some components

Pull Request Description
Building Engine, Context, ApplicationConfig and Ydoc was a adding a rather large delay during the initial startup step as all of those were blocking operations.
Moving all of those to the resource initialization step hopes to amortize some of that cost since it can be done in parallel. Had to add a ComponentSupervisor (open for a different name suggestion) to ensure that such delayed components are properly closed on shutdown.
Important Notes
Adding Ydoc has added a visible delay during startup. I'm hoping that we can amortize some of that with this PR:

Now:

and run in parallel:

Checklist
Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:

[ ] The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
[x] Screenshots/screencasts have been attached, if there are any visual changes. For interactive or animated visual changes, a screencast is preferred.
[x] All code follows the
Scala,
Java,
TypeScript,
and
Rust
style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
[ ] Unit tests have been written where possible.

Shouldn't we have a benchmark that would verify you actually speed language server initialization up with these changes? Such a benchmark shall not be too different from this one - just different arguments, right?

Language server is part of the engine distribution. One just has to use --server option that Runs Language Server.

@JaroslavTulach That is true. However, for it to be useful, one has to also send some requests, at least acquire capability request (?). If you just start language server by simply running something like enso --server ... --root-id ... <all-the-other-necessary-stuff>, without any client connection, are we sure that the language server will start all its components?


windows 10 reports trojan in process hacker

Just checked for update on process hacker and windows told me this:

For me, it says: Trojan:Win32/Occamy.C

Just ignore. There are 8-9 similar issues.

I’ve submitted the file to Microsoft using: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission.
Hopefully, it will get resolved soon.

So can someone confirm this is a false positive?

Microsoft have now confirmed that it indeed isn’t a virus, and it will be whitelisted in the next Windows Defender update:

5th of Aug - Sehyioa.A!cl
12th of Aug - Occamy.C
12th of Aug - Wacatac.B!ml

Is there any information what those virus do or it's attacking methods? So one can check if those signatures match with ProcessHacker.

Perhaps one could submit checksums to Virus Total, they seem to have a program to eliminate false possitives from AV-Tools.
https://blog.virustotal.com/2015/02/a-first-shot-at-false-positives.html
Or at least, submit any new executables released to their  online service which uses 67 anti virus engines to check for malware.
One could (probably) use an url like this to submit a file:
https://www.virustotal.com/ui/search?relationships%5Bcomment%5D=author%2Citem&relationships%5Burl%5D=network_location%2Clast_serving_ip_address&limit=20&query=<UrlEncodedUrlToFileToSubmit>

this results in a result page looking something like this:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/988e8bbea82cc2caa92267ba560c8b25cfacebdb2fe642e087027329c2e4c324/detection
Virus Total also has an API: https://developers.virustotal.com/reference which is probably the prefered way of interacting with them.

Well, Windows 10 AV (defender? ) again claiming ProcessHacker as a Virus!, as a TROJAN VIRUS; this time on of its DLLs.

Closing as external 👍

Trojan:Win32/Casdet!rfn:

Microsoft confirmed it to be false positive:

This is for Process Hacker vrsion 3.0.2780.

I've asked Microsoft asking for more information.

Above error when translated roughly means:

HackTool: Win64/ProcHack
Warning Level: High
Status: Active
Date: 25.11.2019 15:56
Category: Tool
Details: The behaviour of this program is potentially undesirable.

[Related Information]

Affected Items:
- file: E:\Program Files\Process Hacker 2\kprocesshacker.sys

This is probably to be expected, since kprocesshacker.sys is a kernel driver that allows Process Hacker to provide some extra features that require kernel access, which Windows places extra protection on.

Does kprocesshacker.sys allow Process Hacker to do stuff that normally requires elevation without being itself elevated?
Because if so, then that might be why: “the behaviour of this program is potentially undesirable”.

Does kprocesshacker.sys allow Process Hacker to do stuff that normally requires elevation without being itself elevated?

You can't load the driver without (elevated) administrative access and the driver does not allow connections or requests from non-elevated processes. An administrator can deliberately disable those protections (patching files/registry keys etc...) and make the current Windows configuration insecure but every one of those cases requires administrative access.

Whitelisting did the trick

Mine says TrojanDownloader:O97M/Emotet.RO!MTB (Windows Server 2016) not sure if its really safe, been using ProcessHacker since 2-3 years... I'm a paranoid guy so I could whitelist it but it is a false positive I think

@TNTUP
Emotet is a very dangerous virus, maybe it is indeed a real Trojan hiding as Process Hacker. I suggest downloading process hacker again, from an official download link.

@TNTUP
Emotet is a very dangerous virus, maybe it is indeed a real Trojan hiding as Process Hacker. I suggest downloading process hacker again, from an official download link.

I downloaded it off processhacker.sourceforge.io, probably thats shady but thats the same file I have on my storage server o_o

@TNTUP
Emotet is a very dangerous virus, maybe it is indeed a real Trojan hiding as Process Hacker. I suggest downloading process hacker again, from an official download link.

I downloaded it off processhacker.sourceforge.io, probably thats shady but thats the same file I have on my storage server o_o

Check the hash of the .exe file on virustotal, it should be the one with +300 community score.
And also, I got this error in Windows 10 Version 2004 Build 19033.1
Same error as @cliffordx

This certainly isn't an issue of manipulated files. I've downloaded the setup package on 2016-06-04 and reinstalled it after Windows Defender ate it. Then it ate it again right away. I hope my exclusion works now. Otherwise I'll have to consider disabling Windows Defender completely. Antivirus software never found something here, just deleted or blocked needed files. I don't need that.

It's not resolved yet. Someone at Microsoft needs to get their $h*t together, I could run Process Hacker just fine, but when I navigated to its installation folder in Windows Explorer it showed this:

and deleted the .sys file. The version of the driver is <IP_ADDRESS> signed by Wen Jia Liu on Monday, March 28, 2016 10:21:05 AM. The serial # for the cert is 040cb41e4fb370c45c4344765162582f
Then on my other computer, I was getting this message for ProcessHacker.exe v.<IP_ADDRESS>:

which was also deleted by Windows Defender, for being a "tool"? :)

Also same issue on Windows 8.1 x64:

Cool stuff. Suddenly Process Hacker was missing because Windows Defender removed the exe 😆I didn't even notice it.

For me as of today it is showing as:

After I have configured Process Hacker as exception in Defender Antivirus, it was now deleted for the second time. I consequently have to consider Defender AV as malware and deactivated it entirely. Never did anything for me anyway. I have reported this twice as a severe problem of an important feature through Windows Feedback and would advise anybody to do the same.

Windows Defender now seems to be generating a new quarantine for Process Hacker every other day, despite being told the previous day to allow it. It's possible that this (re)occurs whenever it downloads a new threat list from WIndows Update.

It's doubly annoying because when Windows Defender is told to "allow" Process Hacker, it says "This threat has been allowed and will not be remediated in the future." Sadly this is an outright lie, since it has now remediated it for three days running.

Update: Disabling Windows Defender is not effective. After restarting Windows, it is automatically enabled again – and does its thing. Also, stopping, disabling or deleting the service is not possible. The action itself is prohibited for Administrators (when done with Process Hacker) and Windows Updates are likely to restore it anyway. A work-around that I found is adding all of your hard drives as exclusions. Add C:, D:\ and whatever drives you have as excluded folders. I'll report if this also doesn't help to keep Process Hacker on the computer.
And, please keep reporting this as negative feedback (severe problem) in the Defender app. Microsoft has to read the feedback eventually.

@ygoe you can disable Windows Defender permanently by setting DisableAntiSpyware to 1 in your registry (I don't know the exact path, Google it)

I’d just whitelist the entire ProcessHacker directory.

In this particular case, Defender is blocking you for a valid reason.
(I'm not trying to be mean here, there really is a reason).
The owners of this project have to submit an issue to Microsoft using
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission
MS would analyse and respond back. If they say the detection is intended, you should then raise a "dispute". At this point, they would reveal their reasons and help you fix the code that's causing them to flag it.
If you have just submitted an issue and haven't gone through the "dispute" process, you will never know the reason why it was flagged.

@VimalShekar this has been done before :( https://github.com/processhacker/processhacker/issues/454#issuecomment-520428285

@VimalShekar

The owners of this project have to submit an issue to Microsoft

I've done this about 8 times this year.

If you have just submitted an issue and haven't gone through the "dispute" process, you will never know the reason why it was flagged.

My account was banned by Microsoft the same day they pushed the detection and I can't dispute it.
There was an email conversation with Microsoft about the issue but they haven't replied about that or provided information about anything.

@dmex yeah, sounds like a typical MSFT. (Basically when the right hand doesn't know what the left one is doing.)
Try to create another Microsoft account and see if you can find out why they banned it. My guess is that Process Hacker interferes with the functionality of one of their products, i.e. Process Explorer. In that case they won't let you know. But if it's just a false-positive, say, for calling too many native functions, then it's another matter.

Maybe tweet at them too.

@ddbb2017 Retweeted.

@VimalShekar this has been done before :( #454 (comment)

That's August 11, for a different issue...
The detection you are seeing now was added in November for a recent issue...

Reply from John Lambert from Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center:

We are aware of this and last I heard the Defender team was going to reach out to Process Hacker folks. If you hear this hasn't happened, please have someone ping us!

(source)

@dylmye
I can confirm Microsoft has contacted the development team.

Now I'm curious why they deleted your account.

@dmex ok, so what's the rub? What did they not like in there?

@ddbb2017
It's an active conversation and would not be appropriate to share that information right now. I'll post an update after the discussion with Microsoft has concluded.

@dmex ok, fair enough, please do.

"conversation" is the wrong word to describe whats happening at Microsoft right now.

We can loop in John and Tanmay from MDATP if that helps at all.

@dylmye before anything can be done, can someone please explain what do they want from this project? @dmex I'm lost af.

@dylmye
If you think it would help, feel free to ask them.
@ddbb2017
A riddle wrapped in an enigma... Microsoft hasn't provided any actual details, only some vague claims and a request we change something that was changed a long time ago.

Now I'm curious why they deleted your account.

My account is still banned.

I bet they want you to re-sign the driver. and pass it thru their WHQL.

Are they unhappy about it being able to inspect and manipulate protected processes? But then they should flag kprocesshacker.sys and not processhacker.exe.

As of right now it is being passed by the MS engine at VirusTotal - took some thumping on the door, but it looks like someone finally opened it and listened :-)

Windows Defender does not flag Process Hacker anymore. Was able to download 2.39 and install and running as normal. Works on WS 2016 :)

Microsoft has released 3 additional detections for Process Hacker:
"We have determined that the files meet our criteria for detection. At this time detection will remain in place. "

OnlineChecks.dll - Trojan/Win32/Detplock
ProcessHacker.exe - Trojan/Win32/Casdet!rfn
ProcessHacker-setup.exe - Trojan/Win32/Wacatac.C!ml

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/submission/645d8857-7058-4e89-b329-8b358f1fdccc

I also had the Detplock / Wacatac detections on my software, seems like Microsoft just detects absolutely everything that is unsigned now

Isn't the original author work at Microsoft?
Oh no, he left one year ago!

As I said in issue #408, hackers login to RDP and use PH to turn off security software. What interested me is a recent release of Kaspersky Endpoint Security blocks PH in a clever way—only detects PH in RDP sessions.

Isn't the original author work at Microsoft?

Yes. The project author and founder was a senior engineer for the Microsoft Hyper-V team.

Oh no, he left one year ago!

He has left yes. I don't know the details but it's unfortunate and I hope it wasn't because other employees at Microsoft have been attacking his projects and labeling everything as "trojans" or sending him threats,,. It's probably not appropriate to speculate since its unrelated to this issue and I'm biased as to the reasons after employees at Microsoft emailed me a few years ago with threats and more recent actions by Microsoft towards the project.

As I said in issue #408, hackers login to RDP and use PH to turn off security software.

This is not what Microsoft or anyone else has been claiming with their descriptions and signatures?
You also can't disable security software using Process Hacker... Terminating a process does not stop the process from restarting and does not uninstall the product and also does not even disable kernel drivers, remove kernel object callbacks or remove disk minifilter callbacks - all of these and other security related callbacks, functionality and policies cannot be disabled with Process Hacker.
You're probably confusing Process Hacker with how attackers are actually exploiting RDP flaws and the access level provided by RDP (which isn't available for home users) and how it bypasses literally every security policy and mitigation on Windows - I can't fix the security issues with RDP because its a Microsoft product and can only recommend you don't ever use it over the internet (which it does not provide any protection and was never designed for).
For example; If you execute this powershell script over RDP and it'll permanently destroy all security software (and the entire operating system) with a single built-in Windows command: https://gist.github.com/dmex/5885ec528b8231fb75d5a591845b96e6

Microsoft has released 5 new signatures for Process Hacker today:
Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.D!ml
Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml
Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.B!ml
Trojan:Win32/Fuery.C!cl
Trojan:Win32/Detplock

These are additional to the 3 signatures from yesterday:
OnlineChecks.dll - Trojan/Win32/Detplock
ProcessHacker.exe - Trojan/Win32/Casdet!rfn
ProcessHacker-setup.exe - Trojan/Win32/Wacatac.C!ml

Contacted MDATP again, no luck (yet):
https://twitter.com/dylmye/status/1232594687090941953

@dmex wtf, dude? why tf would you post a scrambled PowerShell script here to delete someone's boot partition? It really doesn't help your case.
@dylmye  Did anyone actually look into the source code that MSFT are flagging?

@ddbb2017

why tf would you post a scrambled PowerShell script here to delete someone's boot partition?
It really doesn't help your case

The truth dies in darkness when you dismiss legitimate discussion like that.  That's not my code. I found it while investigating an attack and it should be discussed instead of hidden away.
A simple script that bypasses all security software and causes considerable damage is I would think highly relevant to our case since people have been accusing Process Hacker of RDP attacks and damage oblivious to the RDP vulnerabilities causing the security issues and resulting damage in the first place.
Process Hacker is not some magical unicorn that is able to bypass security privileges and security policies or exploit Windows - It calls the exact same functions used by Microsofts own products and can only do something when you have privileges to preform that action just like Microsofts products.
If you do something you think is 'bad' with Process Hacker it's because you have the privileges and the right defined by group policy to use those functions - if you don't want Process Hacker doing something then change your group policies and account privileges it's that simple - something else can come along and do exactly what Process Hacker does unless you configure your polices - singling out and targeting Process Hacker won't help anyone and just demonstrates incompetence and anti-competitive behavior.
Microsoft is the only one that can stop RDP attacks by improving the security and authentication support of RDP... There is nothing else that we can do that I know about. I've already added every last security mitigation and security feature available on Windows into Process Hacker - I literally can't add anything more unless Microsoft changes their policies allowing open-source projects to use PPL and CI (which they already use with the Windows store for Games and Calculator apps)...
Maybe one day when Microsoft stops attacking the project and changes their policies...

hackers login to RDP and use PH to turn off security software

In addition to my last comment about that...
What happens when you terminate dwm.exe? It restarts.
What happens when you terminate winlogon.exe? It restarts.
What happens when you terminate explorer.exe? It'll restart when you use status 0.
What happens when you terminate lsass.exe? It shows a message for 60s before rebooting (you can cancel the reboot using shutdown.exe /a)
What happens when you terminate csrss.exe? It fails a handle check and ntoskrnl.exe bug-checks the machine with an error code.
What happens when you terminate security processes? Nothing. Just blame Process Hacker.
Why doesn't security software shutdown the machine or restart the process like everything else?
Security software is implemented in the kernel and even after terminating the process it'll continue running. You can check using Windows-Kernel-Explorer and viewing the various callbacks:
https://github.com/AxtMueller/Windows-Kernel-Explorer
Microsoft and other companies are deliberately choosing the worst possible way at handing this issue and the only thing I can summarize is they would rather destroy the project than do anything constructive and let open-source projects to use PPL and CI.

meanwhile it seems like detections were cleared once again

Can confirm @namazso - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/submission/645d8857-7058-4e89-b329-8b358f1fdccc

May I ask what is "PPL and CI"? Google doesn't know it.

@ygoe PPL = Protected Process Light, CI = Code Integrity.
At this stage, both are available for Microsoft products only (or, through a kernel hack.) CI is enabled by default for Windows Store apps, but as a developer you won't be able to do much with it afterwards.
@dmex my point was not about worthiness of PH. (I agree with you on that.) What I was trying to tell you is that linking to an obfuscated malware sample that can wipe out someone's boot drive (if they run your power shell script) is not the best of options to prove what we're trying to prove here. That's it.
As a developer myself I totally hear you.  But that's the world we have to live in since consumers seem to rely on them.

Interested reading that might be of some help...

Rick Strahl: Dealing with Anti-Virus False Positives
https://weblog.west-wind.com/posts/2016/oct/05/dealing-with-antivirus-false-positives

Microsoft docs: How Microsoft identifies malware and potentially unwanted applications
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/intelligence/criteria

Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team: Partnering with the industry to minimize false positives
https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2018/08/16/partnering-with-the-industry-to-minimize-false-positives/

Windows -> Security -> Threat protection:  Information for developers
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/intelligence/developer-info

Also, it seem like the certificate used has expired...

@Bartolomeus-649
What age is the file? It's not like an SSL Cert, the valid date is only relevant during publishing! According to your screenshot it was signed on 09 April 2016, but was valid at the time until Jan 2017

@Bartolomeus-649 that's why that signature has a timestamp that makes it valid, even today, when the certificate itself has expired. That's the whole point of timestamps.
As for re-signing it, then they can't. For that they will need a special certificate to sign a 64-bit kernel driver. That is done with an EV code signing certificate. I'm not sure about the further steps. It may also require passing it through the WHQL.

@Bartolomeus-649  as you can see it is countersigned by the DigiCert time server, with a date of 2016. As far as I'm aware 2016 is between 2013 and 2017

Windows Security just quarantied two of the plugins of ProcessHacker as Trojan:Win32/Detplock.

plugins\ExtendedNotifications.dll
plugins\OnlineChecks.dll

Isn't this the 9th "false positive" from Microsoft so far this year? and it's only March...
They did the same thing last Friday because they know nobody would be in the office over the weekend and it would prolong/maximize damage to the project.
Also not surprised they would target the OnlineChecks plugin and automatically remove it from Windows (second time this week) when its required for integrating Process Hacker with 72 antivirus engines via the cloud....
...

Looks like a targeted offence. Sounds to me like Microsoft is now officially evil. This is the kind of game that little children play. Windows Defender might no longer be a serious security solution but simply a tool to suppress undesired developer productivity apps. Have they learnt too much from Chinese politicians? Process Hacker should explain this offensive behaviour to their users prominently and strongly suggest not using Windows Defender if they seek for reliable and responsible protection.

And we're there again:

This is for version 3.0.2993

Just Downloaded the latest portable version from release page, and Windows defender didn't detect anything.
Also after scanning the whole directory, everything is clean!.
Windows 10 1903 Build 18362.720

This time it's the ExtendedTools plugin that's being detected:

Can somebody please explain why, on VirusTotal, the nightly downloads get assigned the tags downloads-pe and downloads-zip?
VirusTotal links:

Setup .exe (downloads-pe)
Portable .zip (downloads-zip)

the nightly downloads get assigned the tags downloads-pe and downloads-zip

Those tags are assigned based on the HTTP headers returned by the URL rather than the actual file content because you're actually scanning the URL itself and not the downloaded file. If you want to scan the file downloaded by the URL you have to first download it then submit to VirusTotal rather than passing the URL.

This is a whole new level of heuristics fail. A Linux backdoor in a Win32 DLL...

A Linux/Android exploit in a Win32 DLL...

Well done! ProcessHacker is now officially a cross platform 100% free and open-source malware! 🥳

I guess at this point, this should be an issue for people who use PH on some sort of restrictive evironment, like a corporate network, because otherwise issues dealing with AV snake-oil vendors are just noise at this point.

The detection is still active: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1306177/98056549-45cd2f00-1e94-11eb-83c9-402cd9582e09.png

some sort of restrictive environment, like a corporate network,

Defender is built-in and technically cannot be disabled so that's an issue for everyone. How are you going to use Process Hacker when Microsoft keeps deleting the binaries claiming they're malware?

I worked in two companies that its AV were set to block Process Hacker: Kaspersky and Sophos...

Wow, that AV thing doesn't seem to be about "viruses" and malware anymore but rather opinionated. Like so many sad things these days.
This is my standard Process Hacker installation procedure:

Install Process Hacker
Add the installation directory to Defender's exclusion list (like Thunderbird's mail storage to prevent total mail corruption, theoretically)
Install Process Hacker

Maybe the website and/or setup package could promote or even automate that, too.

I'd be okay if it was a Windows Defender only false positive.. but this is a joke:

"Riskware.Processhacker" Wow.

Windows Defender reports those
processhacker-3.0.3585-setup.exe  = Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml
ProcessHacker.exe , ProcessHacker.lnk = Trojan:Win32/Zpevdo.B
processhacker-3.0.3585-bin.zip = Trojan:Win32/Detplock
replace .zip files with .7z
please sign installer and processs binary with same certificate as the driver (or w/e trustable)

Windows Defender changed the detection and reports those
processhacker-3.0.3593-setup.exe = Trojan:Win32/Woreflint.A!cl
processhacker-3.0.3593-bin.zip = Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml

@luckydonald
Wen Jia (wj32) was an employee for Webroot and worked in their US offices for a few years - they issued the "Riskware.Processhacker" signature the same day he left the company.
They're exploiting the legal immunity given by Section 230 in the USA to attack former employees and others without justification.
@Dwarden

please sign installer and processs binary with same certificate as the driver

The binaries are already signed. The problem is Microsoft has added signature checks to a dozen Windows API functions that are explicitly targeting/blocking Process Hacker (separate from Defender) and have refused to fix other highly critical Windows issues.... Signing won't fix anything until Microsoft changes its illegal policies.
The browser wars have ended but the task manager wars are still going strong... taskmgr.exe has been hard-coded throughout multiple components to prevent users from changing the system defaults to third party programs just like Microsoft did with Internet Explorer - the signature checks included with API functions used by taskmgr.exe designed to block competitors is much worse than attacks by Microsoft on Netscape in the 90's and other APIs have been changed to report incorrect information when used by third parties but not their own products.
The malware detections by Microsoft are part of this and are being used as a pre-emptive attack aimed at diminishing our legitimate claims against the company for anti-trust violations.
2008-2018  - 0 false positives by Defender over those 10 years.
2019 - 10 or so false positives
2020 - well over 35 'false positives'.
The first "false positive" by defender was just a few days after wj32 quit working at Microsoft. Mark Russinovich sent both of us job offers but I turned it down because of work on critical issues at Electronic Arts. David Hepkin from the Azure/hyperv/vsm team was wj32's team leader.
Microsoft targeting former employees is one thing but targeting competitors products is well established as anti-competitive by the courts and regulators so the defender team are including our binary signatures in random detections in an attempt to conceal the purpose of the attacks and there are also potentially cases with employees "stat padding" to obtain contract KPI bonuses.
"stat padding" is a reason behind random defender signatures (e.g. Linux/Lotoor.A) containing signatures for Process Hacker despite there being zero relationship - security vendors have contract bonuses for the number of detections and employees
are using competitors binaries to increase the # of detections and obtain those bonuses. This is also why the same signature was used against 6 separate open source projects over 6 months without any shared source code which is statistically impossible for an accidental 'false positive'.
Microsoft still hasn't provided the team with any evidence to support their claims... The best we've received is a regurgitated report from another Microsoft employee here in Melbourne, Australia which made no sense.
MSRC also hasn't responded to emails about these and other issues... These attacks by Microsoft are likely going to get worse until the courts/regulators are more involved so I recommend users switch to Malwarebytes: https://www.malwarebytes.com/
Malwarebytes has been supportive of Process Hacker and they resolve issues extremely quickly in less than two hours - a stark contrast to the actions by Microsoft.

@dmex
About those "!cl" and "!ml" ending detections on Defender, my softwares get that all the time too.  For me it always resolves after submitting, but it's a bit tiresome to do that every single version. (I'd also recommend only caring about it when it's release time, not for random builds, that's just not worth the time.)
However I'm not entirely sure about that Malwarebytes recommendation. They have no way to submit false positives without registering to their forum and stuff (eg. via a form or email). Clearly, they don't really care about software developers trying to get their one of a dozen AV's detection cleared, only about those who use (and often pay) for their software.
Also, do you have any source for the taskmgr signature checks? (source as in what binary has this? I have legitimate interest, not just accusing you or something)

unfortunately there are some factual errors on your side
inbetween the binaries delivered with nightly installer and .zip file
processhacker-<%buildnumber%>-setup. itself IS NOT signed
processhacker.exe IS NOT signed
peid.exe IS NOT signed
any <%plugins%>.dll ARE NOT signed
the ONLY signed file IS the kprocesshacker.sys
with certificate from 2016 including the long deprecated SHA1 and SHA256 (dual sign certificate)
(some AV companies seems to auto-flag binaries with dual sha-1 and sha-256 cert since last year)

certificates and intermediates signed in SHA1 won't be recognized anymore and will provoke security alerts
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/announce/sha1deprecation

my suggestion
phase out the dual signature and replace it with fresh new certificate, using just SHA256
then sign all .exe , .dll , .sys files , no exceptions nor leftovers, with this new certificate
note: legacy OSses like XP SP3, Vista, Windows 7 and Server 2008 support SHA256 with correct KB installed
after this is done we can continue argument about how AV/security or Microsoft handles detection
if this isn't done all they can do, is point to what i just posted as excuse argument

Windows Defender changed the detection and reports those
processhacker-3.0.3612-setup.exe = Trojan:Win32/Spursint.F!cl
processhacker-3.0.3612-bin.zip = Trojan:Win32/Spursint.F!cl
32bit ProcessHacker.exe = Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml

People "earn honestly" for bread and butter and girls, and therefore do not be surprised - they will find something else.:)

@Dwarden

Windows Defender changed the detection and reports those

I need screenshots of these detections so they can be used as evidence. WinDefThreatsView from Nirsoft shows all the relevant detection information that we need: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/windows_defender_threats_view.html

unfortunately there are some factual errors on your side
processhacker-<%buildnumber%>-setup.exe IS NOT signed
processhacker.exe IS NOT signed

Thanks captain obvious.
If you haven't been paying attention... Microsoft changed the signing requirements for Windows back in 2015 requiring developers to submit binaries to Microsoft and receive 'attestation signed' copies of those binaries:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/dashboard/attestation-signing-a-kernel-driver-for-public-release
Attestation signing is another policy Microsoft uses against competitors in the Task Manager wars... To be specific:
Microsoft does not sign our binaries with the correct certificate attributes in order to block and/or severely limit competitors from calling most API functions used by Task Manager and Process Explorer.
The same is true for the following products and not only Process Hacker:  (no specific order)

AnVir Task Manager
MiTeC Task Manager
System Explorer
Daphne
WinUtilities Process Security
Process Lasso
TaskInfo
DTaskManager
Auslogics Task Manager
Also every other competitor.

All of these products are affected and also incorrectly signed blocking them from using dozens of new Windows features and API functions (ntdll/user32) by Microsoft that are being used by Task Manager and Process Explorer.
I'm not sure why those other competitors support that Microsoft policy or why they've been silent about it... I personally refuse to pay $1500 a year for an illegal anticompetitive certificate until it includes the attributes required for features used by Task Manager and Process Explorer.
Even If I wanted to submit the binaries; the submission fails with an unknown error and Microsoft have never corrected either issues with two seperate supports going nowhere. That is effectively banning my account from ever signing a Process Hacker release.
The signing submissions are still in limbo even now:

David Plummer, the former Microsoft developer who wrote Windows Task Manager has also been made statements in the media earlier this year about "secret code" he embedded into Windows giving Microsoft an unfair competitive advantage... I've been discussing Microsoft's actions and policies with our competition regulator here in Australia but its a slow process and I'll have more to share soon™

@dmex primary i wasn't writing about driver but binaries and libraries in the nightly
i.e. you mention Process Lasso  yet that one has ALL binaries and libraries signed for years
Process Lasso works fine, no WindowsDefender detection on any installer, download or install itself nor execution of binaries ...
several of the other software from the list aren't detected by Windows Defender either but I've got no time to test each
e.g. fire are TaskInfo, Daphne etc.
anyway because you decided to aggressively respond to simple request and comments mainly about unsigned binaries
i will not continue in this discussion further

anyway because you decided to aggressively respond

I'm Australian 🤷♂
It wasn't an intention to be aggressive but these are serious issues. Microsoft and other vendors requested Github delete the project for Terms of Service violation earlier this year and there was an attempt to seize our website domain so I've decided to speak out more about the issues we deal with managing this project and the problems we're having going forward and the things we're told by people at those companies.
The webpages published by vendors (i.e. ProcHack!MTB) are used as reference material by other organisations as is this thread on the tracker discussing the issue and the comments weren't aimed at you and I apologise for not making that more clear.

you mention Process Lasso yet that one has ALL binaries and libraries signed for years

The Process Lasso executable certificate hasn't been signed with the correct attributes for over a decade. Microsoft hasn't documented these restrictions so they either don't know or don't care.
They're blocked from calling Windows APIs used by Task Manager like CreateWindowInBand, classes found in NtQuerySystemInformation/NtSetSystemInformation and from using the "secret code" mentioned by Plummer in csrss/winlogon.
If they're serious about competing with Task Manager and Process Explorer then these are some of the Windows features they would probably want to include but can't because of Microsoft's anti-competitive policies.

several of the other software from the list aren't detected by Windows Defender either

Microsoft added a new detection "ProcHack!MTB can be used to patch or "crack" some software so it will run without a valid license or genuine product key." https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threats/malware-encyclopedia-description?Name=HackTool:Win32/ProcHack!MTB&ThreatID=2147755297
The development team does not and has never supported piracy. There has never been anything like that ever included or ever supported by this project. No such feature or functionality for patching or cracking software has ever existed in Process Hacker.

anyway because you decided to aggressively respond

I'm Australian 🤷♂
It wasn't an intention to be aggressive but these are serious issues. Microsoft and other vendors requested Github delete the project for Terms of Service violation earlier this year and there was an attempt to seize our website domain so I've decided to speak out more about the issues we deal with managing this project and the problems we're having going forward and the things we're told by people at those companies.
The webpages published by vendors (i.e. ProcHack!MTB) are used as reference material by other organisations as is this thread on the tracker discussing the issue and the comments weren't aimed at you and I apologise for not making that more clear.

you mention Process Lasso yet that one has ALL binaries and libraries signed for years

The Process Lasso executable certificate hasn't been signed with the correct attributes for over a decade. Microsoft hasn't documented these restrictions so they either don't know or don't care.
They're blocked from calling Windows APIs used by Task Manager like CreateWindowInBand, classes found in NtQuerySystemInformation/NtSetSystemInformation and from using the "secret code" mentioned by Plummer in csrss/winlogon.
If they're serious about competing with Task Manager and Process Explorer then these are some of the Windows features they would probably want to include but can't because of Microsoft's anti-competitive policies.

several of the other software from the list aren't detected by Windows Defender either

Microsoft added a new detection "ProcHack!MTB can be used to patch or "crack" some software so it will run without a valid license or genuine product key." https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threats/malware-encyclopedia-description?Name=HackTool:Win32/ProcHack!MTB&ThreatID=2147755297
The development team does not and has never supported piracy. No such feature or functionality for cracking Microsoft software or activations has ever existed in Process Hacker.

I also get a report on this using Sophos:
https://search.sophos.com/#q=processhacker&t=Support&sort=relevancy

I also get a report on this using Sophos

Sophos are irrelevant considering they're also targeting and blocking Microsoft software such as Process Explorer:
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/threat-center/threat-analyses/controlled-applications/Process Explorer.aspx
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/threat-center/threat-analyses/controlled-applications/Sysinternals Desktop.aspx
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/threat-center/threat-analyses/adware-and-puas/PsExec.aspx

This is how Sophos solves its private commercial problem - to increase sales of its software.
In 1993, I had a conversation with Eugene Kaspersky on a similar occasion - then there was a "antivirus" AidsTest by Mr. Lozinsky that was updated as soon as a new virus appeared. And then Eugene said - “It's strange, it takes several days to analyze a new virus and find a way to eliminate it, and a new version of AidsTest comes out a few minutes after the appearance of a new infection, and a significant part of its database is the first programs that came across. the remedies for his treatment are written by the same person to increase the sales of his program, and for the same purpose, random harmless programs are added to the AidsTest database ... ". And after that, similar questions arose about a number of other antiviruses, but there was no direct connection "virus - antivirus creation", although there were plenty of facts of adding random harmless programs to the AV database.
Now other antivirus manufacturers use a similar method to increase their sales - they add randomly selected popular programs to their AV databases, and they also do not hesitate to publish deliberately false messages about the detection of "viruses" in the media. Naturally, anonymous "experts of antivirus companies" or "experienced users" who check numerous user complaints about the malware's harmfulness become the source of information.
So recently a campaign was organized to discredit WinRAR v5.91, and now it is being repeated in relation to v6.00 - there are already messages on forum.ru-board.com about the deletion of RAR 6.00 archives with text files under the pretext "a virus, trojan, malware "a number of antiviruses.
The same strategy is used with respect to RN - why invent something new if the statistics of the number of installations of their product is increasing, and it does not matter that the authors of the declared malicious programs are forced to spend time and money on proving the absurdity of the accusations made on behalf of anonymous users and reworking their software in order to Eliminating false positives from antivirus software is just business and nothing personal.
And the reasons for this behavior back in the 18th century were explained by the British publicist Thomas Joseph Dunning:

"Capital," says the Quarterly Review, "avoids noise and abuse and has a fearful nature." It's true, but it's not the whole truth. Capital is afraid of lack of profit or too little profit, as nature is afraid of emptiness. But once there is sufficient profit, capital becomes bold. Provide 10 percent, and capital agrees to any use, at 20 percent it becomes animated, at 50 percent it is positively ready to break its head, at 100 percent it tramples on all human laws, at 300 percent there is no crime that it would not risk, even on pain of the gallows. Proof: smuggling and slave trade.

Process Hacker was targeted by SolarWinds/Sunburst/Teardrop:
2032008861530788751:processhacker
Russian anti-virus company Doctor Web has today classified Process Hacker as malicious malware:
Tool.ProcessHacker.2(7),
Tool.ProcessHacker.3,
Tool.ProcessHacker.4(2),
Tool.ProcessHacker.5
Attacked by vendors on one side and attacked by malicious software on the other side... plus covid-19 and lockdowns... 2020 has been the absolute worst 😕

Just an idea: would it be possible to produce a "light" version of Process Hacker that has the same UI and similar feature set, just without the problematic parts that allow these false classifications? I use PH as everyday process management tool, running as admin, but not going too deep into the guts of the processes. What are the special features of PH that require those internal APIs or knowledge of Windows, or the signed driver?

This proposal will not work because the "hunt" is not for a mythical virus, but for the project itself as a competitor to paid solutions of monopolies, and it is they who are the real initiators and profitable events. Therefore, you can cut out the possibilities as much as you like, but they will not be satisfied with this until they destroy any idea of creating alternatives to their paid products. It's just a business, nothing more. And Mr. Mostovoy's DrWeb was distinguished by attentiveness to his "wishes" back in the early 90s, when its antivirus was better known in Russia than in the world.

would it be possible to produce a "light" version of Process Hacker that has the same UI and similar feature set, just without the problematic parts that allow these false classifications?

We're planning on a few things to remedy the situation but removing functionality is not one of them.

What are the special features of PH that require those internal APIs or knowledge of Windows, or the signed driver?

It is impossible to compete with Task Manager and Process Explorer without using internal APIs... Microsoft does not allow anyone to compete with those products and literally everything used by Task Manager and Process Explorer is undocumented.
Yeah sure you can use EnumProcesses from psapi and some others that are documented but they're not used by Task Manager and Process Explorer and it does not return anywhere near the same information as those products. PSAPI also suffers from compatibility issues (those functions were designed for Windows 95!) and they're completely unusable for security checks required on newer versions of Windows.

you can cut out the possibilities as much as you like, but they will not be satisfied with this until they destroy any idea

This is basically what's happened with KPH... It's just a tiny shell of what it used to be and they keep making more demands.

Mr. Mostovoy's DrWeb was distinguished by attentiveness to his "wishes" back in the early 90s, when its antivirus was better known in Russia than in the world.

I found the timing particularly interesting. Process Hacker was targeted by SolarWinds/Sunburst/Teardrop - DrWeb haven't released signatures for SolarWinds/Sunburst but decided to release signatures for Process Hacker? 🤔

In the early 90s, DrWeb was the "main alarmist" on the Nowell NetWare platform, and now there are many complaints about it from different users. The main problem is to get an intelligible answer from them to a clearly asked question.:)

Microsoft has released two new signatures today:
Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.B!ml - peview  - https://i.imgur.com/TdsIGRV.png
Trojan:Win32/Warflint.A!cl - installer - https://i.imgur.com/hD0liZD.png

ExtendedTools has been classified malicious:
Win64:MalwareX-gen
Trojan.Win32.Johnnie
https://i.imgur.com/m5Yb3Nh.png

CDRF has declared our website malicious and have also refused our request to review the classification:

CDRF have now suddenly removed the classification for our website 🤔 🤷♂

Today... ehem... yesterday... anyway, I received this message when updating...
The update was sent to quarantine immediately!

This is how they react to the name "Process Hacker". For the sake of interest, I took the code from S/360 and entered into it "Process Hacker" - 13/70 Microsoft, Sophos and K° - "virus, trojan, keylogger, dialer, password sniffer".:)

I don't see a way to attach images here so I guess I will link to the screenshot dmex asked me to share a couple days ago:
https://wj32.org/processhacker/forums/download/file.php?id=1101&sid=9614de581af56890dfad9239c066339d&mode=view
From this thread:
https://wj32.org/processhacker/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4342

Windows and many virus scanners hate that the application is unsigned. If the application was signed, it would likely be trusted.

Windows and many virus scanners hate that the application is unsigned. If the application was signed, it would likely be trusted.

But this - the word "hacker" in the name can become a trigger for other flywashers - "No need to check, we kill by name!" Once upon a time, Symanteck by the name .ko in make "found" viruses in the FreeBSD UNIX source and ... erased them along with local ports, and after two years the developers of the fly swatter convinced me that "Once removed, it means a virus! antivirus is not wrong!".:)

But this - the word "hacker" in the name can become a trigger for other flywashers - "No need to check, we kill by name!" Once upon a time, Symanteck by the name .ko in make "found" viruses in the FreeBSD UNIX source and ... erased them along with local ports, and after two years the developers of the fly swatter convinced me that "Once removed, it means a virus! antivirus is not wrong!".:)

Nightly build 3.0.3701 (more specifically, ProcessHacker.exe) is detected as "Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml" by Windows Defender just like several previous versions.

Nightly build 3.0.3701 (more specifically, ProcessHacker.exe) is detected as "Trojan:Win32/CryptInject!ml" by Windows Defender just like several previous versions.

Kaspersky Internet Security with today's updates just started reporting 2.39 main exe and setup//data0006 as Trojan.Win32.Shelma.bcti

Kaspersky Internet Security with today's updates just started reporting 2.39 main exe and setup//data0006 as Trojan.Win32.Shelma.bcti

Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.B!ml detected in nightly version 3.0.3720 today.

Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.B!ml detected in nightly version 3.0.3720 today.

I guess there is not much one can do than trust this.
To me file nightly gives this: Win32/Woreflint.A!cl
SHA256 of the portable zip 6104DCA0AF58911A9D0835C15B849754BBBE23F1C9EAF01C7EA41D50AFD007A1
But I suppose it too is an false positive.

The zip file currently has 36 detections that are all completely different... I haven't been able to get a sensible response from anyone about it and nobody seems to know what's happening.
Half of the detections are:
Win32:MalwareX
Win32.Troj.Generic_a.a
Artemis!81B884FCC970
PUP/Win32.RL_Generic.R359108
Gen:Variant.Mikey.118476
Riskware/ProcHack
not-a-virus:HEUR:RiskTool.Win32.Proc
Malware.AI.1270165517
It's all over the place with every vendor detecting something completely different:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/6104dca0af58911a9d0835c15b849754bbbe23f1c9eaf01c7ea41d50afd007a1/detection
The setup - which has an embedded copy of the exact same zip file - has only 9 detections but they're all different yet again:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/d2dcdca30553dc0a99e541fb19d4af6735ac165be8a0becbf20f9a1df023372b/detection
AV software is definitely broken right now... I've discovered the "Gen:Variant.Mikey" detections are because we're using the MessageBoxW function... the others I have no idea.
An educated guess is that vendors updated their sandboxes/scanners with the latest Windows patches released the other day but then haven't bothered to account for internal API changes introduced by Microsoft and are now detecting those internal changes as modifications by the process being scanned 🤷♂
I'm going to replace MessageBoxW as a workaround for the "Gen:Variant.Mikey" detections but that might cause issues with the warning dialogs/error prompts... I'll try get some sense from vendors why their software is broken and when they're releasing fixes.

Microsoft and Malwarebytes have removed their detections for the latest nightly... I've also removed MessageBoxW and MessageBeep from the IAT.
That's 5 detections removed right there, 30 more vendors making excuses and arguments yet to go.

Hello,
@dmex Today Kaspersky Internet Security has "cured" (that is removed) ProcessHacker on my Windows 10 PC. It's component "Applications' Control" has detected via Cloud Protection that ProcessHacker is an "VHO:Trojan.Win32.Agent.xagpxa".
I've reinstalled it without running right after installation and added ProcessHacker to 'Trusted Zone'. That let me run ProcessHacker again. At least for some time as its whole directory was already in an exclusion list of a File Antivirus component and that was enough until this day.
Hope this info helps somebody who would face the same problem.
I've attached a screenshot and a report in case you'll go discuss the issue with Kaspersky. They are in Russian though.
kav-1.txt

Hello,
@dmex Today Kaspersky Internet Security has "cured" (that is removed) ProcessHacker on my Windows 10 PC. It's component "Applications' Control" has detected via Cloud Protection that ProcessHacker is an "VHO:Trojan.Win32.Agent.xagpxa".
I've reinstalled it without running right after installation and added ProcessHacker to 'Trusted Zone'. That let me run ProcessHacker again. At least for some time as its whole directory was already in an exclusion list of a File Antivirus component and that was enough until this day.
Hope this info helps somebody who would face the same problem.
I've attached a screenshot and a report in case you'll go discuss the issue with Kaspersky. They are in Russian though.
kav-1.txt

+1. The https://processhacker.sourceforge.io/nightly.php looks fine.

Since I whitelisted it there has not a been a problem, it's run flawlessly since this debacle started

Malwarebytes and Webroot report this too, and apparently more...
VirusTotal report:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/70211a3f90376bbc61f49c22a63075d1d4ddd53f0aefa976216c46e6ba39a9f4

What about thinking? Someone needs competitors with much more capabilities than their programs?

I would like to understand, but don't understand what you mean. 🙂

There isnt any malware, antimalware companies are just dumb and Microsoft is anti-competetive

Something else that might help, at least for the official release, is for the developer to use a current valid code signing certificate. The current one on kprocesshacker.sys expired in 2017...

I'm totally not advertising, my company has a partnership with DigiCert so I can have them issue an EV certificate for $485/year as opposed to the retail cost of $664/year for an EV cert. That's over $500 off for a 3 year, ha! You can find me on asheroto.com.

@asheroto The certificate issue has been discussed already, maybe in this issue. And it's not "expired", the signature was created within the time of validity of the certificate so it's alright. There just hasn't been an update to it anymore, but that's not necessary for signatures.

Very true, I suppose I was wondering if it would help curb some of the detections but no way to really know.

Best way for the common user to help is report the false identification to virus databases, since their dumb heuristic engines can't seem to understand that strong privileges does not mandate something to be a virus

Process Hacker uncovered gross errors in the Valve Corporation software, which became the reason for its war against the project, which was later joined by antivirus programs, as well as Microsoft Corporation, which also has its own interests in it - people pay for a license for its Task Manager when buying an OS as well , as previously paid for Internet Explorer - according to Microsoft, these programs are not free.

Back to my comment just over a year ago
'Since I whitelisted it, there has not a been a problem, it's run flawlessly since this debacle started'
Still working fine on Win 10 without any issues

Just so you guys know, every time there is a comment about 42 people gets emailed about this issue, maybe this should be locked as this problem is resolved (that is, being reported and removed by Windows Defender)

@sabihoshi People can edit their notification settings.

No need to block any further comments just because some people get notifications. Those that actively follow this issue might realize this likely won't be fixed or closed, and if you realize that then you might as well unsubscribe from the issue if you don't want to take part in it.

Just so you guys know, every time there is a comment about 42 people gets emailed about this issue, maybe this should be locked as this problem is resolved (that is, being reported and removed by Windows Defender)

No its not. I just had Windows Defender go nuts for the same made up virus in the nightly build of Process Hacker 3 that I've been using for a week and Defender was chill with until it forgot to take it's Bipolar meds:
Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.B!ml
They said they were fixing this 3 years ago and yet they link me to the same old article from 2019.

Hi folks, looks like the Defender strikes back again:

And think? Little the inc? Or as one "specialist" writes:
"I am a programmer of the old school. I don’t read anything. I only write.
original, in Russian - "Я -- программист старой школы. Я ничего не читаю. Я только пишу. Если хренью не понятно как пользоваться методом тыка, то ну ее нах, эту хрень. "
:lol:
Did you decide that the first one encountered the "unknown"?

@vharmash
Report false positives to Microsoft by uploading the binary here:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission
The same way you report binaries is the exact same way we report binaries 🤷♂

Gotcha, thank you.

my win 10 allowed system informer to run but as soon as i opted to make it my default task manager  defender quarantined it as Trojan:Win32/Bearfoos.A!ml


[Feature Request] Please release a version with a later version of kotlin

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
For a flutter project with higher kotlin version, such as 1.7.21, and

classpath 'com.android.tools.build:gradle:7.3.1'
distributionUrl=https://services.gradle.org/distributions/gradle-7.5-all.zip

flutter build apk
Building with sound null safety
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

What went wrong:
The Android Gradle plugin supports only Kotlin Gradle plugin version 1.5.20 and higher.
The following dependencies do not satisfy the required version:
project ':barcode_scan2' -> org.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-gradle-plugin:1.3.61

Describe the solution you'd like
If it's possible to get barcode_scan2 version with kotlin gradle > 1.5.20
Describe alternatives you've considered
I don't want to degrade my project's kotlin, so I have to stay with a few compatibility warnings at this time without upgrading classpath and distributionUrl.
Additional context
Thanks for the plugin!

Any work on this? @mono0926

@bismarabia
No, but I'm welcome the pull request 🐶

Any work on this? @mono0926

@HendrenTahsenKhalaf
No, but I'm welcome the pull request 🐶

as a quick solution for this I downloaded the package on my local machine
I included as an embeded library of my project
I put it in a folder called .plugins in project root directory
I changed version of kotlin plugin in build.gradle file
I add this line to pubspec.yaml file to read the package from inside the project
barcode_scan2:
path: ./.plugins/barcode_scan2
it works fine for me, it is a light weight package so the project will not have much a bigger size

I'm happy to make the PR/change. Are there any specific tests or edge cases I need to worry about?

no, not as far as I know. you can merge it


Add server login

Using Express Sessions and a simple 'users' table in the SQLite database, a user can now create an account, log in, and log out of the application using a simple API.
These changes also create a directory structure that can be used to keep the rest of the application consistent during development.

Interesting. It looks like the stuff you did created some webpages as well. I have some code on my end where I was working on the landing page so I'll have to touch base with you on that.
Looks good to me though

Interesting. It looks like the stuff you did created some webpages as well. I have some code on my end where I was working on the landing page so I'll have to touch base with you on that.
Looks good to me though

Yeah, I mainly added these for the basic login and signup forms, and also because pages have to follow a certain directory structure to work. I didn't add any styles or elaborate in the HTML, I just added enough to facilitate login and signup. When you add pages and styles, you can just put them in those basic empty file that I added. I can explain more about the structure of the project when we meet up at some point.


Fix Landing Page in Dark Mode

Description
Replace the right side Image with a different suitable SVG in Darkmode
Screenshots

Additional information
No response

I want to use some LottieFiles dark animation over there can you assign this to me..

@bbsdevloper go for it

can you chose ant one or should i go with my choics

@bbsdevloper Actually we want to keep the previous image itself and the white edges has been fixed. So, closing this issue.


ClickHouse driver: user/pass are ignored therefore connection fails

I am trying to connect to a ClickHouse cluster using your docker-compose based installation but once I add it as a new database it fails complaining
ERROR:root:Code: 194, e.displayText() = DB::Exception: Password required for user default (version <IP_ADDRESS> (official build))

although it is set in URI.
How to reproduce it:
I have appended sqlalchemy-clickhouse to the end of requirements-eextra.txt and run docker-compose up.
In add database form I set clickhouse://user:pass@clickhousehost:8123/mydb (obviously redacted here) and when pressing test connection I get a message in a popup:
ERROR: {"error": "Connection failed!\n\nThe error message returned was:\nCode: 194, e.displayText() = DB::Exception: Password required for user default (version <IP_ADDRESS> (official build))\n", "stacktrace": "Traceback (most recent call last):\n  File \"/app/superset/views/core.py\", line 1511, in testconn\n    with closing(engine.connect()) as conn:\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py\", line 2196, in connect\n    return self._connection_cls(self, **kwargs)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py\", line 103, in __init__\n    else engine.raw_connection()\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py\", line 2296, in raw_connection\n    self.pool.unique_connection, _connection\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py\", line 2265, in _wrap_pool_connect\n    return fn()\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py\", line 303, in unique_connection\n    return _ConnectionFairy._checkout(self)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py\", line 760, in _checkout\n    fairy = _ConnectionRecord.checkout(pool)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py\", line 492, in checkout\n    rec = pool._do_get()\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/impl.py\", line 238, in _do_get\n    return self._create_connection()\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py\", line 308, in _create_connection\n    return _ConnectionRecord(self)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py\", line 437, in __init__\n    self.__connect(first_connect_check=True)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py\", line 639, in __connect\n    connection = pool._invoke_creator(self)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/strategies.py\", line 114, in connect\n    return dialect.connect(*cargs, **cparams)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/default.py\", line 453, in connect\n    return self.dbapi.connect(*cargs, **cparams)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy_clickhouse/connector.py\", line 111, in connect\n    return Connection(*args, **kwargs)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy_clickhouse/connector.py\", line 118, in __init__\n    super(Connection, self).__init__(db_name, db_url, username, password, readonly)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/infi/clickhouse_orm/database.py\", line 112, in __init__\n    self.db_exists = self._is_existing_database()\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/infi/clickhouse_orm/database.py\", line 393, in _is_existing_database\n    r = self._send(\"SELECT count() FROM system.databases WHERE name = '%s'\" % self.db_name)\n  File \"/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy_clickhouse/connector.py\", line 102, in _send\n    raise Exception(r.text)\nException: Code: 194, e.displayText() = DB::Exception: Password required for user default (version <IP_ADDRESS> (official build))\n\n"}

and logs output
superset_1         | INFO:root:Database.get_sqla_engine(). Masked URL: clickhouse:///user:pass@clickhousehost:8123/mydb
superset_1         | DEBUG:urllib3.connectionpool:Starting new HTTP connection (1): clickhousehost:8123
superset_1         | DEBUG:urllib3.connectionpool:http://clickhousehost:8123 "POST / HTTP/1.1" 401 None
superset_1         | ERROR:root:Code: 194, e.displayText() = DB::Exception: Password required for user default (version <IP_ADDRESS> (official build))
superset_1         | Traceback (most recent call last):
superset_1         |   File "/app/superset/views/core.py", line 1511, in testconn
superset_1         |     with closing(engine.connect()) as conn:
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py", line 2196, in connect
superset_1         |     return self._connection_cls(self, **kwargs)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py", line 103, in __init__
superset_1         |     else engine.raw_connection()
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py", line 2296, in raw_connection
superset_1         |     self.pool.unique_connection, _connection
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/base.py", line 2265, in _wrap_pool_connect
superset_1         |     return fn()
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py", line 303, in unique_connection
superset_1         |     return _ConnectionFairy._checkout(self)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py", line 760, in _checkout
superset_1         |     fairy = _ConnectionRecord.checkout(pool)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py", line 492, in checkout
superset_1         |     rec = pool._do_get()
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/impl.py", line 238, in _do_get
superset_1         |     return self._create_connection()
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py", line 308, in _create_connection
superset_1         |     return _ConnectionRecord(self)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py", line 437, in __init__
superset_1         |     self.__connect(first_connect_check=True)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/pool/base.py", line 639, in __connect
superset_1         |     connection = pool._invoke_creator(self)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/strategies.py", line 114, in connect
superset_1         |     return dialect.connect(*cargs, **cparams)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/default.py", line 453, in connect
superset_1         |     return self.dbapi.connect(*cargs, **cparams)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy_clickhouse/connector.py", line 111, in connect
superset_1         |     return Connection(*args, **kwargs)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy_clickhouse/connector.py", line 118, in __init__
superset_1         |     super(Connection, self).__init__(db_name, db_url, username, password, readonly)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/infi/clickhouse_orm/database.py", line 112, in __init__
superset_1         |     self.db_exists = self._is_existing_database()
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/infi/clickhouse_orm/database.py", line 393, in _is_existing_database
superset_1         |     r = self._send("SELECT count() FROM system.databases WHERE name = '%s'" % self.db_name)
superset_1         |   File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sqlalchemy_clickhouse/connector.py", line 102, in _send
superset_1         |     raise Exception(r.text)
superset_1         | Exception: Code: 194, e.displayText() = DB::Exception: Password required for user default (version <IP_ADDRESS> (official build))
superset_1         |
superset_1         | <IP_ADDRESS> - - [14/Jan/2020 12:48:15] "POST /superset/testconn HTTP/1.1" 500 -
superset_1         | INFO:werkzeug:<IP_ADDRESS> - - [14/Jan/2020 12:48:15] "POST /superset/testconn HTTP/1.1" 500 -

It seems user and pass are ignored despite they are provided in URI.

Another probably-related issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-superset/issues/8953


Dropbox upload not working

I am trying to upload a rather large file (~100mb, SQLite database) to Dropbox with react-native-blob-util. I authenticate with Dropbox to get an access token react-native-app-auth. The response I am getting from react-native-blob-util is that it worked: It goes into the then block. When I console.log() the res I get this (the data prop looks suspicious):
{"array": [Function anonymous], "base64": [Function anonymous], "blob": [Function anonymous], "data": "Error in call to API function \"files/upload\": Invalid authorization value in HTTP header \"Authorization\": \"sl.Bl...\".  Expecting \"Bearer <oauth2-access-token>\".", "flush": [Function anonymous], "info": [Function anonymous], "json": [Function anonymous], "path": [Function anonymous], "readFile": [Function anonymous], "readStream": [Function anonymous], "respInfo": {"headers": {"Accept-Encoding": "identity,gzip", "Cache-Control": "no-cache", "Connection": "close", "Content-Encoding": "gzip", "Content-Security-Policy": "sandbox allow-forms allow-scripts", "Content-Type": "text/plain; charset=utf-8", "Date": "Sun, 10 Sep 2023 08:21:22 GMT", "Server": "envoy", "Strict-Transport-Security": "max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload", "Transfer-Encoding": "Identity", "Vary": "Accept-Encoding", "X-Content-Type-Options": "nosniff", "X-Dropbox-Request-Id": "0d608050e40b41b79033ad96f82c1fac", "X-Dropbox-Response-Origin": "far_remote", "X-Robots-Tag": "noindex, nofollow, noimageindex"}, "redirects": ["https://content.dropboxapi.com/2/files/upload"], "respType": "text", "rnfbEncode": "utf8", "state": "2", "status": 400, "taskId": "...", "timeout": false}, "session": [Function anonymous], "taskId": "xxn9ye010qjh2yjcrl8u8", "text": [Function anonymous], "type": "utf8"}

Additionally, there is
a) nothing in my Dropbox  (despite the App-Folder)
b) the upload takes about 1sec which is way too short for ~100mb.
Here is the code.
  const _authenticateDropbox = async () => {
    const config = {
      clientId: '...',
      clientSecret: '...',
      redirectUrl: 'org.reactjs.native.example..../oauth',
      scopes: [],
      serviceConfiguration: {
        authorizationEndpoint: 'https://www.dropbox.com/oauth2/authorize',
        tokenEndpoint: `https://www.dropbox.com/oauth2/token`,
      },
      additionalParameters: {
        token_access_type: 'offline',
      },
    };
    try {
      const user = await authorize(config);
      if (user) {
        if (user.accessToken) _uploadData(user.accessToken);
      }
    } catch (error) {
      console.warn('Something went wrong logging in into Dropbox, ', error);
    }
  };

  const _uploadData = accessToken => {
    const dbName = `${DATABASE_NAME}.db`;
    const databasePath = `${RNFS.DocumentDirectoryPath}/${dbName}`;

      ReactNativeBlobUtil.fetch(
        'POST',
        'https://content.dropboxapi.com/2/files/upload',
        {
          Authorization: accessToken,
          'Dropbox-API-Arg': JSON.stringify({
            path: '/foo.db',
            mode: 'add',
            autorename: true,
            mute: false,
          }),
          'Content-Type': 'application/octet-stream',
        },
        ReactNativeBlobUtil.wrap(databasePath),
      )
        .uploadProgress({interval: 250}, (written, total) => {
          ...
        })
        .then(res => {
          console.log(res)
          console.log(accessToken) // its not empty, a looong string starting with sl.BlwH...
        })
        .catch(error => {
          console.warn(error) // not logging
        });
  };

If I do a
const databaseExists = await RNFS.exists(databasePath);
console.log(databaseExists); // true

it logs true, so the path is correct.
When I check the size of the file (just to make sure that this is no empty file) with
ReactNativeBlobUtil.fs
  .stat(databasePath)
  .then(stats => {
    console.log(stats);
  })
  .catch(err => {
    console.warn(err);
  });

It returns
{"filename": "foo.db", "lastModified":<PHONE_NUMBER>000, "path": "/Users/.../Library/Developer/CoreSimulator/Devices/3B433335-5FEA-4324-BCD4-4CBB677C5A4E/data/Containers/Data/Application/98544ECA-3FDF-4D24-AEB8-F1015E2BEEAD/Documents/foo.db", "size": 108924928, "type": "file"}

So the file exists and has a size.
What am I missing?
Versions:
"react-native": "0.71.7",
"react-native-blob-util": "^0.19.1"
"react-native-app-auth": "^7.0.0",

The Authroization Header should look like this
Authorization: `Bearer ${accessToken}`,


GA4 - product payload

Thanks for this tag btw, very helpful!
Just sharing a couple of tweaks that may be helpful for GA4 payloads that might be useful to build in:

Currently the code is prepared for the UA EE product payload, GA4 uses item_id , item_sku and item_category which aren't being picked up (sku/id/ category are but item_sku/item_id/item_category aren't)
(Optional) coupon can be present on each item level or order level which could be leveraged (Optional because this can be done with already build additional params functionality within the tag)
(Optional)  currency could also be taken from GA4 item payload (or event data) (Optional because this can be done with already built additional params too)

Hi,
Thanks for such a detailed issue description.
I already added to my to-do list made fixes for issues you found.

Done. https://github.com/stape-io/impact-tag/commit/c3ad666c45b678d1184d0e1cae5c57043f345f8e


Minting balance

Good morning,
I noticed that after my coin got mint that i am missing a 100 MXY on my minting transaction log. the balance in the minting transaction log doesn't reflect my available balance
Thank You

Hello,
I got the same issue. Restart your wallet, it should then be fine. I sent a ticket few minutes ago to get an answer from support as I assume we should not have to restart the wallet every day after having received our rewards.
Bye.

thank you worked like you said..


clean_up function is dropping collection along with any indexes defined for collection

After using the clean_up function in a test, the collections are dropped, including any indexes that were defined for the collection.  This is causing other tests that depend on those indexes being present to fail (e.g. unique constraints).
e.g. in mocha test:
    after(function(done){fixtures.clean_up(done)});

The clean_up() function is using the Mongoose collection drop() function.  If it used remove() instead, it would remove all documents from the collection, but keep the indexes intact.

Thanks, I merged your pull request.


about duplicate vertex and edge

Discussed in https://github.com/alibaba/GraphScope/discussions/1845

Originally posted by wuyueandrew July 14, 2022
consider a bench dataset like：
vertex label a:
aid
1
2
3
3

vertex label b:
bid
6
6
7

edge(a -> b)
src_id,dst_id
1,6
2,6
3,7

graph = graph.add_vertices('/tmp/dataset_test/duplicate_dataset/a.csv', label='a', vid_field='aid')
graph = graph.add_vertices('/tmp/dataset_test/duplicate_dataset/b.csv', label='b', vid_field='bid')
graph = graph.add_edges('/tmp/dataset_test/duplicate_dataset/a_to_b.csv',
                        src_label='a',
                        dst_label='b')
interactive = sess.gremlin(graph)

node_num = interactive.execute("g.V().count()").one()
edge_num = interactive.execute("g.E().count()").one()

What's the reason of node_num=7, edge_num=3 ?
I think node_num=7 and edge_num=3 are confilct.
1.Duplicate vertexs which have equal vid_field can be create repeatly ?
Is vid_field a unique key and gs has a oid like primary key?
2.If the answer 1 is yes, the edge number should be 5 (2 * (1->6) + 2 * (2->6) + 1 * (3 ->7)) i thought.
what's the reason of edge_num = 3 (due to this, duplicate vertexs which have equal vid_field can not be created obviously)?

I think the real reason is GraphScope do not deduplicate the vertices and edges in graph loading processing.

这个问题现在有初步的结论么，我比较好奇

It is expected.
Duplicates vertices in the vertex data files will causing duplicated nodes when scan vertices.
The underlying implementation works as the following way:

When loading graph, vineyard first scanning all vertices, creating an vertice array and a hashmap, where

the vertices array is all given vertices (without dedup), in this case, the size would be 7
the hashmap contains a mapping between the original vertice id to an internal id, in this case, the size would be 5

Then vineyard's graph loader will scan all vertices, and building the CSR, based on the internal id stored in the hashmap, thus the edge is 3 in this case.

The requirements for non-duplicated orginal vertice id in the source data is by design.
Hope the information about could be helpful for your question.

Closing as answered. Feel free to comment or reopen your still has further questions.


Add support for Zstandard content-type

Although Req has long supported Zstandard content-encoding, it does not yet support Zstandard content-type which is used for original .zst archive files (as opposed to encoding other original media types like JSON for transfer).
This PR adds automatic decompression when :ezstd is available and content-type: application/zstd is detected. It depends on an upstream change in the MIME package: https://github.com/elixir-plug/mime/pull/82

Thanks for the PR, please add docs and test and this is ready to go!

Done. In the meanwhile, MIME has been updated to 2.0.6, which adds support for Zstd.
Req currently requires MIME ~> 1.6 or ~> 2.0 — should we leave a note somewhere that MIME ~> 2.0.6 is required for Zstd?

Thank you!


Neeed to update jasmine typing version to 2.5.41

I recently downloaded your seed project and tried to run it, It threw an error for typings with jasmine. I found a post telling people to update typing jasmine version to 2.5.41 and error went away. please update your seed accordingly

Thank you!
Done.


Splitting the roadsigns demo into multiple pipeline steps and showing that working

Shweet, splitting the roadsign demo into multiple steps and running it works fine now!
There's still an issue with serialising keras models (not a problem in this specific case), I'll make an issue for it.


Problem with enable-rounded

Hello.
I think there is a problem with the input groups. when i set enable-rounded as false, input groups still has radius style in css. Can u help me to fix this issue please?
Thanks.

No issues with this:

Did you use a select element for this? Border radius can not be turned off for the default select elements, but you can use the custom select.

@MartijnCuppens
yes i'm using select element on input groups. thanks for reply.

Is this even valid?


Handlers for touch backend

This is looking good, I will look at it more closely after we finish of the current refactoring

We're going to revisit this after #111 is done. Closing for now, as it's built against the old API we're aiming to replace.

we will look at it more closely...

maybe in 2020 ? :D

Hi @nelix and @gaearon, are there still plans to review and merge this in?


Add support for read only tokens for remote repos

Currently when checking the issues on remote repos the same github token is used as for writing to the origin repo. This works fine for origin repo issues or public remote repo issues, but for private remote repos the provided github token needs read access. As the used github token also needs write access to the origin repo this can be difficult to work with, as providing a token that can read and write to all repos in an org, or generating a specific token for each repo (write to repo, but read all) is undesireable.
This PR solves this problem, by adding support for an optional second github token READ_ONLY_GITHUB_TOKEN which is used to fetch the remote repos. If it is not provided the required GITHUB_TOKEN is used, like before.

Thank you @felixbrucker . I like the idea 👍
I will review and merge when I get my hands on my PC again, should be in a week or so.


Add issue template Done

Closes  #208  .
Changes :

[x] 🐛 Bug Report Issue template done
[x] 📄 Documentation Issue template done
[x] 💡 Feature Issue template done

Look the Changes :
3 Templates ..

1.  Bug Report Issue template

2. Documentation Issue template

3.  Feature Issue template

[x] I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct .

Amit Maity - GSSoC'22 Contributor.

Great Work!!

Thank You 😊


Reports export to html or csv

Possible that traccar has this feature.

Traccar doesn't have this feature yet, but it's definitely in plans.

@tananaev In my opinion, this would be a very important feature to consider.

Reports is a high priority feature in my backlog.


crypto/rand: Documentation for non-specialists

The crypto/rand package contains 1 documented exported global object "Reader", 3 documented exported funcs, and 1 full example showing how to produce 10 random bytes.
It may be non-trivial for some developers to correctly derive common use cases from this API and this example.
It seems that we may have 2 opposite approaches A and B about how we want the crypto/rand package to be used:
A. Crypto is subtle in general. If one is not sure of what they're doing, they shouldn't use the crypto/rand package, risking to use it incorrectly and getting a false feeling of security. This is more or less the warning of the crypto/subtle, applied to all things crypto. So our best advice is to discourage many developers from using crypto/rand.
B. Generating sensitive secrets (nonces, passwords) is a common use case, for which using math/rand is mostly incorrect. math/rand has a useful warning about this "This package's outputs might be easily predictable regardless of how it's seeded. For random numbers suitable for security-sensitive work, see the crypto/rand package." We want to strongly discourage math/rand for sensitive numbers, thus we expect developers to use crypto/rand and encourage them to do so.
The following assumes that our approach is B, not A.
math/rand and crypto/rand have a different API, and sometimes what we want is the convenience and features of the "math" API, with the security provided by the "crypto" package.
As a contrived but realistic example, let's say a non-cryptographer needs to generate a secure random string of 16 characters, where each character is in range 'a'-'z', uniform, per some 3rd party API requirements.
This would be straightforward with the math/rand API:
var alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"

func generateNonce() string {
	a := make([]byte, 16)
	for i := range a {
		a[i] = alphabet[rand.Intn(len(alphabet))]
	}
	return string(a)
}

and more complicated with the crypto/rand API:
func generateNonce() (string, error) {
	a := make([]byte, 16)
	for i := range a {
		bi, err := rand.Int(rand.Reader, big.NewInt(int64(len(alphabet))))
		if err != nil {
			return "", err
		}
		k := int(bi.Int64())
		a[i] = alphabet[k]
	}
	return string(a), nil
}

Even worse, the developer could use incorrect shortcuts in good faith, without noticing:
func generateNonce() (string, error) {
	a := make([]byte, 16)
	_, err := rand.Read(a)
	if err != nil {
		return "", err
	}
	for i := range a {
		k := a[i] % byte(len(alphabet))     // <- probable bug here
		a[i] = alphabet[k]
	}
	return string(a), nil
}

(this distribution is skewed, which could be bad for security, though I'm not sure how bad exactly)
My suggestion is to embrace B and enrich the documentation of crypto/rand with vetted examples for a few use cases. Before writing any, I'd like to discuss the idea.

Also, it's currently not clear why the crypto/rand API returns errors: #54980

CC @golang/security

Note we've recently declined adding such a random string generator in crypto/rand: #53447
It seems unlikely we will want to put the same thing in the docs or examples.
Like the conclusion of that proposal, it seems better suited for a third party package.

Thanks Sean for the link, I wasn't aware of #53447 yet

Duplicate of #25326


Support for a PowerBI agent and toolkit

Initial version of support to have a bot talk to powerbi, docs still to be added.

Mostly some notes on best practices and on authentication, for in the notebook and I do want to test with a more complex dataset, plan to do that early next week, this might cause some prompt changes, especially for the query checker. I noticed at times that that just gives back the same thing each time and then it doesn't make sense to keep running those queries, so that should be improved.
But, overall it seems to work well already!

Mostly some notes on best practices and on authentication, for in the notebook and I do want to test with a more complex dataset, plan to do that early next week, this might cause some prompt changes, especially for the query checker. I noticed at times that that just gives back the same thing each time and then it doesn't make sense to keep running those queries, so that should be improved.
But, overall it seems to work well already!

cool! should i hold off on landing until early next week then?

Just also added some refinement, but give me till next week to finish.

Just also added some refinement, but give me till next week to finish.

sounds great!

@hwchase17 this is now good to go, also includes async support and I've split the few-shot examples out so that you can supply your own which makes the recognition much better! Still getting some weird pydantic error that I can't figure out, maybe you know more!

apparently pydantic didn't like new style typing with future.annotations, after reverting it works now!

gonna try to fix and merge in!

@eavanvalkenburg Hello, when I run example code, it shows this. Do you know how to solve this?
Traceback (most recent call last):
File ".py", line 20, in
powerbi=PowerBIDataset(None, "b0c0d9dc-726e-4bf5-8344-e6cc807c4a75", ['tableName'], DefaultAzureCredential()),
File "pydantic\main.py", line 332, in pydantic.main.BaseModel.init
TypeError: init() takes exactly 1 positional argument (5 given)

fixed in #3426


package haskell-ieee754 is causing FTBFS of package haskell-hastache on big-endian

Hello,
Package haskell-ieee754 is reason why package haskell-hastache is FTBFS on big-endian.
I have attached a patch for this issue.
With this patch applied to package haskell-ieee754 I was able to build package haskell-hastache on mips big-endian successfully.
haskell-hastache issue:
https://github.com/lymar/hastache/issues/36#
Patch:

--- haskell-ieee754-0.7.3.orig/cbits/feqrel_source.c
+++ haskell-ieee754-0.7.3/cbits/feqrel_source.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 # define REAL_EXPBIAS            ((uint16_t) 0x3F00)
 # define REAL_EXPBIAS_INT32      ((uint32_t) 0x7F800000)
 # define REAL_MANTISSAMASK_INT32 ((uint32_t) 0x007FFFFF)
-# if BIG_ENDIAN == 1
+# if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN
 #  define REAL_EXPPOS_INT16 0
 # else
 #  define REAL_EXPPOS_INT16 1
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
 # define REAL_EXPBIAS            ((uint16_t) 0x3FE0)
 # define REAL_EXPBIAS_INT32      ((uint32_t) 0x7FF00000)
 # define REAL_MANTISSAMASK_INT32 ((uint32_t) 0x000FFFFF); /* for the MSB only */
-# if BIG_ENDIAN == 1
+# if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN
 #  define REAL_EXPPOS_INT16 0
 #  define REAL_SIGNPOS_BYTE 0
 # else

Regards,
Jurica

Your fix may work for your machine, but now it fails on mine (x86).  I've added a patch with a more robust check (https://github.com/patperry/hs-ieee754/commit/561747ca15dfffe802406606778d080f301ab9f9).  Can you please test this on your big-endian machine?

With your patch applied and the package haskell-ieee754 built, I was able to build package haskell-hastache on mips (big-endian) and mipsel (little-endian) successfully.
Regards,
Jurica

Thanks for checking!  I just uploaded a new version with the fix to hackage (0.7.5).