Quote -

1. file://localhost/path of your install (readme)

Hosts:

2. http://www.data.your country code/poser

3. http://www.downloads.your country/readme's/product name

To many users/people, these "url's" may appear suspicious, but honestly, I find it hard to believe they are anything to be concerned about. Additionally, I find it very hard to believe that they are sending any sort of personal information to DAZ, or anyone else.
Keep in mind, this is much like "taking a statement out of context" .... actually .... it is literally taking a statement out of context. In this case, Windows 7 is trapping requests or statements, that it doesn't understand, or possibly the UAC won't let happen. But we know nothing about what came before or after the statement, which leaves it completely open to interpretation, and based on one's personal biases and experiences, this interpretation can range from "it's an evil plot to send personal information back to the mother ship" to "it's garbage code in the installer".

As someone already mentioned, as they stand, they are not properly formed URL's, and could not be effectively used as they stand by any browser. Doing a whois lookup on the two www "URL's" gives no indication that these are some sort of tracking or information collecting sites. From the information provided, and knowing that the installers are somewhat smart (i.e. they "remember" the last location you installed to), in context, these statements may either refer to the internal locations that the original data came from at DAZ, or the customization used, or that could potentially be used, for the installer to use local language/characters (i.e. the country references could be used to look at the same file that gives the last installation location for language/character set usage by the installer). But, given the fact that this only happens when the view the readme option is checked in the last step of installation, I would surmize that at least the first statement is used by the installer scripts to open the proper readme in your browser.

Now, all this is simply conjecture on my part, based on the statements provided above, with my attempt to place them in what I feel would be a proper context, based on 25 years of experience in IT. My experience in IT includes everything from systems management, to programming, to security management. If someone needed to use these very same installers on any of the systems I am responsible for, I would have no problems with their use at all. But, your mileage may vary.

As for all the talk about the warnings that ManleyStanley is experiencing, I've had the same warnings, but went ahead and installed my content (and told the AV to ignore them), after installation the system is fine - no viruses. Again, this is simply a guess, but looking at the behavior of the installers, false positives can be expected. They are "intelligent" installers. I'm not trying to be facetious here, but how do you think they "know" where to install stuff in non-standard locations? They can't use the force, so they need to either search your system every time the installer runs (years ago they did this .... everyone complained), or keep a file on your system to give the installer the proper options for your individual environment. I'm sure the installer performs some sort of quick validation of the options it gets from this "hidden" file everytime it runs. Both the activity of opening this hidden "configuration" file and the validation of the directories to use by the installer could easily be seen by AV software as being a potential system threat and trigger a false positive. I'm not worried about the installers being virus laden. But again, that is my opinion, and your milage may vary.

On a final note, the work that Skiriki has proposed would put all the speculation to rest - mine, as well as others.

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......