Several files deleted from the Divinity Engine (the game editor). Editor obviously no longer works. Norton seems to have it in for Larian and have crippled my new copy of DOS 2 also. I hope this can be sorted out.
Norton users beware.

I have sent an early access report with full details of affected files to Larian (it popped up because the game wouldn't start because files were deleted), I also reported the problem to Norton Feedback with full details, I also posted on the Norton Forums with full details of affected files. But if you mean the Norton web form to report false positives - I tried that but it requests copies of the affected files to be attached, files which Norton has deleted and I can't finish the report without the files or a url where the files can be downloaded by Norton? Yes, I am aware that I can do all sorts of things like turning off Norton or approving the files myself but why would I do that? Why bother with expensive security systems if you disconnect them to solve a security problem? That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know why, but Norton and the affected developers seem to expect the user, who trusted them, to jump through hoops to sort this kind of thing out. How do I know if it's a false positive? Maybe there is a weakness in the files which might be exploited by hackers, maybe the files *are* suspect. I pay Norton to know the answers because I dont. Could Larian not submit the game directly to Norton for testing and, if all is well, get the game whitelisted ?

If not, why not? But thank you for answering. I hope something can be done, the game looked really good during the short time I was able to play. In the meantime I am requesting a refund from GOG until this is sorted out.

Why should game developers be responsible if a self-proclaimed "security firm" can't do the one thing right they ought to do? (aka "You had ONE JOB!")

It's like in Raze's example wrongly blaming your brother for "looking like a burglar" – as long as he didn't wear a ski mask and climbed up the wall of your house. And I don't think D:OS does anything comparable to the latter in your system.

Please don't get me wrong. I am as sure as I can be that Larian are not distributing malware. But that said wouldn't you think Norton and Larian would discuss this kind of thing, even if it's just to request that Norton improve what seems to be a very coarse malware detection system. This type of problem must hurt Larian's sales at least a little bit. If, on the other hand, gamers just automatically exclude Larian files from their virus protection system (or exclude any other apparently "false positives" that get flagged) what is the point of having virus or malware protection?

BTW, V4V, as far as my brother is concerned - I trust him and he would always be welcome because I know him. I don't "think" I know him. I just know him.

What it really comes down to is: who should you trust the most? A computer security company you have used for years and who have always kept you safe - or a game developer that advises you to shut down your virus protection program if their game won't start (you just have to read the Steam forum tech problem section). Is there something strange about the Larian dll's?

Just so you know how keen I am to play DOS2 - I downloaded it from Steam because I had read there were sometimes problems with the GOG versions of games. Sadly it's the exact same problem on Steam also. This time I am trying to send the "false positive" examples to Norton with a request to whitelist them. I'll keep you posted.

Let me be clear, I am not anti-Larian. I really want to play this game - safely!

The problem is 100% Norton's; has nothing to do with Larian. I have to be honest with you--this post angered me a bit just reading it--so many bad--false assumptions you make. "How do you know if it's a false positive?" Use your head--if the source is Larian--you *know* it's not an infected file. Right? There is no "weakness" in the files whatsoever--that is entirely a product of your imagination--a file is either infected with a virus or it isn't--period. The problem is 100% Norton's--turn it off--use a different security program. What on Earth would make you think that Larian in any way, shape, or form has anything to do with Symantec's software?

I dumped Norton's more than a decade ago because 1) It's far too invasive and gums up the system and 2) can *slow* things down as it jumps between your game software and you, and 3) loves to make the end user think it's working by serving up a rich helping of false positives! Who believes the false positives?--n00bs, that's who. Norton's uses algorithms to *guess* that a file *might* be infected--and since there is no such infection in the case of the Larian game files--Norton's guessed wrong. Let that sink in--Norton's is wrong.

Have you ever bought games before from reputable developers with unassailable reputations--like Larian? This game isn't something you downloaded from a Warez site, is it?--If so it's bootlegged and it might *have* a virus in it--but not from Larian, of course. But if you bought it direct from Larian via GOG or Steam then you *know* that it is virus free and you should know that both Steam and GOG check for things like that, too--because they distribute the software. Far better and smarter to dump Norton's--demand a refund for that--the files from Larian are *guaranteed* not to be infected--go ahead, ask Symantec if it guarantees every file that it flags is actually infected--they will not *guarantee* it because they can't. You sound like a n00b--"false positives" are the bane of the security software business--the least talked about but the worst problem with running security software.

Advice, but I doubt you will take it: I'm using Defender that comes standard with Win10x64--love it because it is 100% effective *and* I have experienced nearly a 100% *absence* of false positives with it! It also has the lightest resource footprint of any of them. That is the one thing you never hear about in AV-program "reviews" (If you can find one that isn't underwritten by one of the AV devs, that is)--how many *false positives* it springs on the user. You see, Norton's has already ruined your program experience, and this won't be the last time it will happen to you with Norton's. Trust me when I say that a dev like Larian will *not* deliver virus-infected files--guaranteed--and that Symantec will *never* guarantee that any file it flags is *not* a false positive. You can take that to the bank. I don't know what gobbledygook you swallowed when you bought Norton's, but no matter: best advice I can give you is *dump it.* Whatever you *think* you know about Norton's is most likely *wrong.*

There is *no virus* in the Larian files that you bought from either GOG or Steam. Norton's is simply wrong. Now, *why* would you want to keep using software that has already steered you wrong once? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, where in the world did you read that "there was something wrong" with GOG files? All I can say is whatever you have been reading is horrible and false...;) And...how can you not piece it together that if Norton's wasn't spitting out a bunch of false positives that they'd *not* have a dedicated upload *just for the false positives their software flags*?

@waltc.

I have never read a post like yours before. It succeeds in being both defensive and antagonistic and very, very rude.

Yes - Iam a noob.
Yes - I don't know anything about virus or malware detection.
Yes - I know very little about computers.
Yes - I am probably a useless waste of space that should be eliminated so you clever guys can live in happy isolation far away from real people.

For goodness sake! I am just an old person who has being playing pc games to stave off the inevitable destruction of the last few brain cells I have. I just wanted a little help and advise I could understand.

All I've had from you lot is "trust Larian because they are good and honest people" - "Don't trust Norton they are useless because they detect something wrong with Larian files."

You expect me to accept that as reasoned responses? Why is Larian to be trusted? I know you say I should trust them - but why should they be trusted more than Norton? Why does Larian advise people that have problems with the game to turn off virus protection and not just turn off Norton but ANY virus protection? Why should I trust anyone who suggests that kind of dangerous and irresponsible solution to problems with a little "game"?

You think you were angry at MY post? How do you think I feel when subjected to your ridiculous response. How dare you! We were just talking about a silly little game for goodness sake, not world famine or anything really important.

You can continue to abuse others who ask for help but I assure you it won't be me. I shall never return to this particular forum again. I refuse to spend what little time I have left being subjected to the illogical and abusive response of simpletons.

Goodbye.

The forum software seems to have a problem with my post, so I'm dividing it in multiple posts. edit: Interestingly, the forum fused my two posts together, but won't let me post the third (a short reply to waltc), maybe because that would make the whole post too long? Anyway …

… although you won't return to a forum because of one user's posting (I predict that you won't stay long in most forums this way), I'll answer anyway if only for other readers who're interested in this matter.

You suggest that Larian should talk to Norton because Norton's Software made an error. Apart from a short notice about the IMO very likely false positive, I don't see any reason any software company should invest much effort in errors other companies make. Potentially reduced sales may be a motivation, but I don't think many gamers won't buy a game because some malware scanner makes mistakes – they're known for that widely. That is a good question the computer world is divided about. But I see an obvious line between tech pros and laymen. The latter tend to believe the promises of the anti-malware industry, while many if not most tech-savvy people are much more sceptical if not openly dismissive of such "security software" because it could have (and often has) security flaws itself, can't detect malware it doesn't know, or "detect" harmless files by trying so heuristically, and overall keeps users in an illusion of safety.

See this survey about the different preferences in system security between security experts and non-experts. Look out for "antivirus software": https://security.googleblog.com/2015/07/new-research-comparing-how-security.html

In my eyes, a system should be configured securely rather than making it potentially less secure by installing more bug-prone software to "fix" it. That's one of the reasons I prefer Linux over Windows. But even more important, users should and must be security aware in their digital everyday life, which really isn't that difficult. Adhering to some simple rules like different and long passphrases (password managers help a lot), updating your system and third-party applications regularly (Linux does this better than Windows), and overall trying to conciously reduce one's all-too-human gullibility. In short, using Brain 1.0 in these times of Web 4.0. Yes, but your security guard doesn't and you expect your brother to settle the problem with your guard himself (instead of you, the guard's client), while a more secure house may make the fallible guard obsolete entirely. Who said they kept you safe – whereas their software may have made your system even less safe, e.g. by tinkering with its internal security measures or by wide-open security holes in their own software. Both problems are frequently reported about practically all anti-malware products, just search the Web for "antivirus vulnerability".

So, who to trust? I would trust neither only by their word, but I would look at the big picture: Are there reports about detection errors from Norton or malware-scanners in general? How common are they? What does that say about your scanner's reliability? In return, how many reports about security issues with Larian games are there? As always, you can't be sure 100%, but maybe you can narrow the uncertainty to make an educated guess. We all can't do much more than that.

Well, at least it's rational.

After considerable difficulty ( for me) I have succeeded in getting the DOS 2 files " iggy_w64.dll" and "osiris_x64.dll" whitelisted by Norton so they are no longer a problem for me.

Don't mention it Larian, you are more than welcome. And thank you to Larian and the members of this friendly forum for your tremendous efforts and understanding.

Have a nice day.

Raze is with Larian but the rest of us are customers of GOG on their forum. Larian does have their own forum and they are more responsive then most game makers. Try Larian.com - might get a more agreeable response if needed in the future.