Closed z80-AF2882 closed 10 months ago
Related to #1136
Side note: there are no issues reported when built from sources in cygwin with libpng16 - not by my local AV nor by virustotal. Could there be really somthing wrong with released exe? Or just not makred false positive as my exe has different hash?
This was definitely a false positive, and 0.6.1 is out of date now anyway.
Side note: there are no issues reported when built from sources in cygwin with libpng16 - not by my local AV nor by virustotal. Could there be really somthing wrong with released exe? Or just not makred false positive as my exe has different hash?
What's wrong is that AVs are nowadays using machine learning to detect malware, and that's extremely prone to false positives. As you can see here.
As a general rule, if something only flags a couple of AVs, it's probably a false positive. Also, disregard every single result flagged as a machine learning result (e.g., a virus name ending in !ml
in a few engines) — those are almost never actual viruses.
The big names you noticed, Avast, AVG, and McAfee, no longer complain about rgbgfx 0.7.0. Only MaxSecure and SecureAge, and as ax6 said, a few random scanners giving false positives is to be expected. (Should have put "Removed virus" in the changelog. :P )
Worth noting that SecureAge is a trashy piece of software that reported every single EXE file I tried as a malware, including binaries included with Windows itself. I mailed VT about it, saying that it's better removing it from the service, but it didn't help much.
Steps to reproduce:
Expected: green field Reality: several detections (Avast, McAffee, AVG)
Link to detection https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/c7dcd478d3cb6f8cf90639d35fed6e8b84b60dea94c686c68ef8a218e39deb62