Stable release 3.2.6

[cazfi]

3.2.6 fixes two security vulnerabilities in savegame/scenario file handling, and number of other bugs. See the full list of changes.

Source code is available in the usual place. Compiled Windows packages aren't available yet, but should follow shortly; we'll post again here when they turn up.

[cazfi]

Windows installers are now available.

[RebootEDC]

GTK4 compilation is marked as trojan:

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/317 ... /detection

[cazfi]

GTK4 compilation is marked as trojan:

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/317 ... /detection

At least security vendors don't have consensus about that - scan of just 2/66 vendors flagged the installer as malicious.
We see false positives from time to time - if it's my own vendor, I usually send the file for manual analysis, and then they fix their scanner not to produce such false positives.

[RebootEDC]

Microsoft has removed the false flagging.
At least Defender won't bug us all the time now.

[crixtiano]

GTK4 compilation is marked as trojan:

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/317 ... /detection

I encountered the same VirusTotal detection reported above.

I downloaded the official Windows installer:

Freeciv-3.2.6-msys2-win64-10-gtk4-setup.exe

from the official Freeciv website and submitted it to VirusTotal before installing it.

Trapmine detected the file as:

“Malicious.moderate.ml.score”

VirusTotal report:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/317 ... /detection

I understand that this may be a false positive, especially since most antivirus engines do not detect anything malicious. However, as an end user, this warning made me hesitant to install the program.

Could the developers please confirm whether this exact installer has been checked and is considered safe?

I am adding my report mainly to confirm that other users are encountering the same warning.

Thank you.

[cazfi]

Could the developers please confirm whether this exact installer has been checked and is considered safe?

All I can say is that it has been checked by one of those 65 vendors that do not find anything suspicious in the file.

It's very unlikely that there would be a virus, that could be detected by one vendor only, in our production system because our vendor hasn't prevented it from entering, and that virus would then had contaminated the produced installer, but it's theoretically possible if those 65 vendors are wrong and the one vendor is right.
Further, there was originally two vendors considering the file unsafe, presumably detecting the same patterns in it, and one of them withdrew the flagging, after they improved their detection heuristic. It seems likely that even the last one would withdraw the flagging if they did similar improvement to their detection heuristics.
You never can be 100.0000% sure.