ElecardFAN Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Well funny to be entitled idiot from somebody who obviously more adequate to wear this title. Usually it is called "In dubio pro reo", but it seems to be that more and more anti virus tools try to turn this phrase around. This is something which was usually a job well done by scare ware all over the www. Anyway if you think the software (you i suppose payed for and did not collected it somewhere else) you got from cmuv contains a virus, because your anti virus thinks there is such a thing inside, feel free to remove it. It is technically impossible to avoid these warnings by the DVBViewer team, especially since all files downloaded are unique. Link to comment
hackbart Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Sorry, this thread is running more and more into a senseless discussion, which will probably end sooner or later in a flameware (Goodwin's law) i will exercise property rights and close this here. There are multiple similar threads in this board and we (the developers) made more that one explanation to clarify why we can NOT solve every false alarm. Even huge companies are affected by this false alarms, if you don't believe feel free to google for example for "adobe virus warning", or read this: http://billpstudios.blogspot.com/2010/10/mcafee-continues-to-harm-winpatrol.html . Christian Link to comment
Griga Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 But apparently you *do* care (see your own readme for the latest pushsource.ax), so why are we still discussing? That's something that could be done easily (though I don't like to do it). But be sure that I will not spend my time with searching work-arounds for being compatible with X different virus scanners. If people don't trust my software, they shouldn't use it. I don't earn money with it, so I don't mind. Some time ago there was lot of trouble with Avira and UPX-compressed files. Every now and then a newly created file triggered a warning on my PC. So I wrote a mail to the company (after X false positive reports) and proposed the scanner should unpack such files and examine them again, if they are regarded as suspicious, instead of only relying on the detection of certain byte patterns. And I assume they are doing something like this now, because I got no such false positive in the last two years. Other companies seem to be a bit behind in this respect... Link to comment
Recommended Posts