Version 3.2.0
No problem from McAfee.
Only Unknown Publisher, which is understood.
Good work.
No problem from McAfee.
Only Unknown Publisher, which is understood.
Good work.
🧪 Help needed: Testing a single-file portable EXE on different Windows machines
- Thread starter fernando1987
- Start date
- Similar Threads Similar Threads
Exactly, that is what I expected.
The Unknown Publisher warning is normal for now because the installer is not digitally signed yet, so it is great to know that McAfee did not report any problem.
And thank you again for testing it.
If you have a moment, I would also really appreciate your feedback on a few more things:
- Did you like the installer interface/theme?
- Were the Office-related files correctly associated after installation?
- Do the Office add-in and macro-enabled files appear properly under Open with?
- Does the Create Ribbon Add-in context menu appear and work correctly?
- Does Ribbon UI Studio appear correctly in Installed apps in Windows?
Also, the previous Portable testing helped a lot here. Thanks to the antivirus tests and adjustments made during the Portable phase, the installer was able to reuse that work and pass the antivirus checks much more cleanly.
Thank you very much again for taking the time to test it. Your feedback is helping me validate both the Portable packaging and now the installer system itself.
Exactly, that is what I expected.
The Unknown Publisher warning is normal for now because the installer is not digitally signed yet, so it is great to know that McAfee did not report any problem.
And thank you again for testing it.
If you have a moment, I would also really appreciate your feedback on a few more things:
If all of that is working properly, it would mean the installer is already meeting several of the more advanced requirements I wanted from this new installer system, not just copying files.
- Did you like the installer interface/theme?
- Were the Office-related files correctly associated after installation?
- Do the Office add-in and macro-enabled files appear properly under Open with?
- Does the Create Ribbon Add-in context menu appear and work correctly?
- Does Ribbon UI Studio appear correctly in Installed apps in Windows?
Also, the previous Portable testing helped a lot here. Thanks to the antivirus tests and adjustments made during the Portable phase, the installer was able to reuse that work and pass the antivirus checks much more cleanly.
Thank you very much again for taking the time to test it. Your feedback is helping me validate both the Portable packaging and now the installer system itself.
- It is Okay.
- I do not know how to use it. I just run the exe and check the interface. Asking to open xml, but I do not have any.
- Just shows my drives
- Do not know how to check it.
- Nothing to install or create install here.
Some screen-shots
Attachments
Thank you very much for checking it and for the screenshots.
I think there was a small misunderstanding in my previous message.
What I was referring to was the Windows Installer, not the Portable EXE.
The Portable version is the one that runs directly and does not need to be installed. The Windows Installer is the package that was generated with the new application I am developing for creating installers.
That is the one I wanted to test for things such as:
- appearing correctly in Installed apps;
- file associations;
- Open with integration;
- the Create Ribbon Add-in context menu;
- shortcuts and installed files;
- and the general installer interface.
Thank you again, and sorry for the confusion.
Thanks a lot for testing it and for the feedback.
I believe I’ve now fixed the issue that was triggering McAfee. The problem was related to an internal helper executable used by the installer. I rebuilt that part so the helper is now generic and stable instead of being regenerated differently for each application.
I also took the opportunity to package the new test build using one of InstallerLab’s other installer themes, so you’ll see a different interface this time.
If you have a moment, could you please download and try the new Windows Installer again and let me know whether McAfee still blocks it?
That test would be extremely helpful, especially since McAfee was the antivirus that detected the previous build.
Thank you again for taking the time to test it!
exe installer 3.2.0Thanks a lot for testing it and for the feedback.
I believe I’ve now fixed the issue that was triggering McAfee. The problem was related to an internal helper executable used by the installer. I rebuilt that part so the helper is now generic and stable instead of being regenerated differently for each application.
I also took the opportunity to package the new test build using one of InstallerLab’s other installer themes, so you’ll see a different interface this time.
If you have a moment, could you please download and try the new Windows Installer again and let me know whether McAfee still blocks it?
That test would be extremely helpful, especially since McAfee was the antivirus that detected the previous build.
Thank you again for taking the time to test it!
Installs Okay
But McAfee blocked and deleted the exe on run
Thank you very much for testing it again. This test was actually very useful.
The good news is that the new installer architecture worked: the InstallerLab Setup.exe was able to run and complete the installation correctly. So the previous problem with the installer helper appears to be solved.
However, your test revealed a different issue. After installation, McAfee blocked and removed the application executable itself when it was launched. In this case, that executable is the Windows launcher produced by the B4J build/packaging process, not the InstallerLab installer.
So the current result is:
- InstallerLab Setup.exe: worked
- Installation process: worked
- Installed application files: installed correctly
- Application EXE generated from the B4J project: blocked by McAfee when launched
There are still more tests to do before I can consider the antivirus issue completely solved, but this is useful progress because we have now isolated the next file that needs investigation.
This has also given me an idea for the next feature in InstallerLab.
I am planning to add a dedicated B4J Build & Package button specifically for B4J developers.
Instead of asking the developer to manually compile and package everything, InstallerLab would be able to select a B4J project folder and automate the build using the official B4J tools, then package the result using the same stable V3 architecture that has performed much better in the antivirus tests.
The idea is roughly:
B4J project
→ official B4J compilation
→ InstallerLab V3 stable packaging
→ Windows standalone application
→ optionally create Setup.exe, Portable, MSI or Bundle
The goal is not to bypass antivirus software or claim guaranteed reputation. The goal is to avoid unnecessarily generating new helper/launcher binaries for every project and to reuse stable, generic components wherever technically possible.
This could be especially useful for B4J developers who want an easier way to distribute their applications without having to build an entire packaging system themselves.
Your McAfee tests have been extremely valuable because they are showing me exactly where the weak points are. If you are willing to keep testing future builds, I would really appreciate it. Thank you again!
New test build available
I’ve uploaded a new installer for testing.
This version is a little different from the previous one: the application included in the installer was built using a different packaging method instead of the standard B4J-generated executable.
The goal is to compare how antivirus software, especially McAfee, reacts to this new build and to confirm that the application installs and launches correctly on other machines.
If this test goes well, InstallerLab should be very close to being ready within the next few hours.
There are still more tests to do before calling it finished, so any feedback is extremely useful.
If you can, please test:
Thank you again to everyone helping with these tests. The results are directly helping improve the final build.
I’ve uploaded a new installer for testing.
This version is a little different from the previous one: the application included in the installer was built using a different packaging method instead of the standard B4J-generated executable.
The goal is to compare how antivirus software, especially McAfee, reacts to this new build and to confirm that the application installs and launches correctly on other machines.
If this test goes well, InstallerLab should be very close to being ready within the next few hours.
There are still more tests to do before calling it finished, so any feedback is extremely useful.
If you can, please test:
- whether the installer downloads without being blocked,
- whether installation completes normally,
- whether the installed application opens successfully,
- and whether your antivirus reports or removes anything.
Thank you again to everyone helping with these tests. The results are directly helping improve the final build.
Hi,
Thank you very much for testing it again. This result was actually extremely useful.
The good news is that:
- the installer downloads correctly
- the installation completes correctly
- McAfee is no longer blocking the installer itself
The remaining problem is specifically the installed Ribbon UI Studio.exe.
After checking the generated B4J Portable package, I found the exact cause: although InstallerLab was reporting that it was using the new V3 launcher, it was actually caching and reusing the standard B4J-generated launcher.
I also confirmed that the executable in the B4J Portable package has exactly the same SHA-256 hash as the executable McAfee removed from C:\Program Files\Ribbon UI Studio.
So this test has helped me isolate the problem very precisely. I do not need to change the installer again. The installer side is now working; I only need to replace the small top-level B4J launcher while keeping the B4J runtime itself unchanged.
I’m correcting that now. Once it is ready, I would really appreciate one final McAfee test with the new build.
Please don’t disable McAfee or add exclusions — I want to see how it behaves under normal protection.
Thanks again. Your tests have been extremely helpful in finding this last issue before the first InstallerLab release.
Hi,
Could you please download and test it one last time?
I found the problem with the previous build. The installer itself was already working correctly, but the installed application was still using the old B4J launcher.
I have now replaced it with the new InstallerLab launcher, so this version should behave differently.
Please download the Windows installer version again from:
https://fernand21.github.io/ribbon-ui-studio/
As before, please test it with McAfee running normally — no exclusions and no disabling the antivirus.
Hopefully this should be the final test.
Please let me know if:
- it downloads correctly
- it installs correctly
- Ribbon UI Studio opens
- McAfee leaves the installed EXE intact
Thank you very much again for all the testing and patience.
Thanks for testing it. Could you please click “See details” in the alert and send me a screenshot of the full detection information?
I especially need:
- the exact detection/threat name
- the file that was blocked
- the category or type of detection
- the action taken
This will help me identify exactly why InstallerActions.exe was blocked and determine whether I need to adjust anything in the installer.
Thanks again for the help.
Testing phase closedThe testing phase for this build is now officially closed.
Thank you very much to everyone who downloaded the test versions, tried them on different Windows systems and antivirus configurations, and shared feedback, screenshots and results.
Your help was extremely useful and allowed me to make several important improvements before the first preliminary public release of InstallerLab.
The project has now moved to its next stage, and the first preliminary version is available here:
https://fernand21.github.io/installerlab-web/
I have also published a new post with more information and a special thank-you for the members who participated in the tests.
Once again, thank you all for your help!
