You are here

"Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. ..."

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
eric123
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2010-01-22 22:59
"Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. ..."

I'm a new user of the portableapp suite. Really love having these apps with me on my usb stick.

When I use the suite on my notebook at work (xp), all of the apps work except for FirefoxPortable, SudokuPortable, SunbirdPortable and StartPortableApps. All four pop the error "Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. ...". When I looked at the properties of the executables i noticed that all the working apps appear to be signed, and the non-functioning apps do not appear to be signed.

When I plug my usb into my personal noteboook (vista), all of the apps work including the launcher. When I look a the properties, all of the apps appear to be signed.

Is there a known OS/signing issue? Or, is there something that I need to do to make all the apps work in XP? I stumbled upon the suite while looking for a usb version of firefox - so i'd really like to get firefoxportable working. Thx.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 44 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Hardware

That sounds like a hardware issue on that particular PC. Try a different USB port.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

eric123
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2010-01-22 22:59
hardware?

hmm - is that likely? Left the notebook at work, so i can't try right now, but would you suspect hardware when 9/13 apps are working fine and 4/13 are not?

crux
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 2008-06-13 18:10
How long are the paths?

The limit in XP is 260 characters, while in Vista it's 32,000.

pbostley
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2010-03-15 14:26
"." is path..

With McAfee anti-virus installed it was blocking the launch of the app for me with a "Attack type: Suspicious Double File Extension Execution". Changing the "."'s to "_"'s on the intaller fixed the problem for me.

Chris Morgan
Chris Morgan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 11 months ago
Joined: 2007-04-15 21:08
Bah

How silly on their part. It's quite legitimate to have two "file extensions" as it may appear to the user. I think it's bad to just block it completely - maybe ask if you realise what you're doing but not to block it.

I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.

“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1

BuddhaChu
BuddhaChu's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Joined: 2006-11-18 10:26
I don't use McAfee products,

I don't use McAfee products, but there may or may not be a way to customize the file types that get blocked by the double file extension ruleset (add an exception).

https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=KB60461

Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!

luptonma
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2010-09-16 11:54
McAfee interferes with install

I had an issue executing the PortableApps.com_Platform_Setup_2.0_Beta_5.exe file on my work system as well. I got the same error message reported in the first post of this thread. I tried changing the file name of the installer several times before found that renaming the file to PA20B5.exe worked. This system runs McAfee version 4.5.0.1270 with custom scanning rules implemented by corporate IT so there is no telling what gets blocked or flagged or deleted.

So if you are running McAfee, or other intrusive security software, try renaming the install file to a nice short 8.3 compliant name.

Max L.

NorahAura
NorahAura's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 years 1 week ago
Joined: 2010-09-14 01:12
Same Issue.... Same Fix

Thanks Max, this worked!

kwhitefoot
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 2011-02-10 06:09
McAfee double extension

I have the same problem and it looks like there is no solution except to rename the file (I don't have the necessary privileges to change the McAfee setup).

Is there any strong reason why the files are named in this way? Could you change the naming convention to use some other separator character, an underscore or dash perhaps?

Chris Morgan
Chris Morgan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 11 months ago
Joined: 2007-04-15 21:08
Shoot it

Smite McAfee. It's silly.

The "double extension" is the neatest way of doing it; otherwise it would just obviously be part of the filename - "FooPortable_1.0_paf.exe" is just ugly.

Then also there is now the general recognition of .paf.exe; it means something special to lots of users. It's part of our branding. So without extremely good reason we're not going to change it.

I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.

“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1

kwhitefoot
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 2011-02-10 06:09
McAfee double extension

For me and for all those trying to use PortableApps at work where McAfee is the corporate anti-virus, etc., tool and is set up in this way it is a major problem. Not because I have to rename files that I download but because the same problem occurs during update using the new beta PortableApps updater (2.0 beta 5 pre 2).

It happened once during the update and I am not sure which application triggered it. Edit: it seems to be the PortableApps.com Installer 2.0.8 that caused McAfee to complain, all the rest updated without problems.

To have to rename a file that I have downloaded is merely a minor irritation but to not be able to use a tool like the updater is a major irritation.

I agree that is bad of McAfee to do this but it seems that for many of us there is nothing that we can do about it.

Perhaps a compromise would be possible. Leave the file names as they are but have the updater temporarily rename them, or take a copy, when executing them.

Anyway, thanks for all the good work.

ottosykora
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 2007-10-11 17:48
complaining to mcafee

I made the experience that complaining to the authors of av software is very productive, often thigs were changed within hours.

Try to file this as bug with them .

Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland

kwhitefoot
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 2011-02-10 06:09
File a bug report with McAfee

If you can find out how I can do this I'd be glad to. There is nothing on the McAfee.com site, that I can see, that offers to accept bug reports. There is a 'Service Portal' but that requires all sorts of information I do not possess.

Remember that this is not a problem for private registered users of McAfee's products, they can simply turn off that rule. The problem occurs in corporate environments where the users have no influence on the configuration.

kwhitefoot
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 8 months ago
Joined: 2011-02-10 06:09
Curiouser and curiouser

Downloaded another couple of portable apps today and now they execute quite happily.

Very strange. Perhaps the IT department monitors PortableApps.com and fixed it (unlikely I think).

Moonbase
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2010-09-09 06:16
Well, who knows … IT people

Well, who knows … IT people can be smart (and often use PortableApps themselves). Actually, in one training facility and one other company (on specific machines only) we disallow almost everything, but explicitly allow PortableApps (site access, download and USB usage). And of course, no such thing as disallowing ".paf.exe".

Log in or register to post comments