Do you understand that this situation is very bad?f-wolf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:32 amThis is a false positive. Reason for false positive is that we use special binary packer ASProtect to pack the executable (to protected it against cracking), this technique is similar to the one used by some malware.
You can check the file or distributive using some online service (e.g. virustotal.com) to make sure that absolute majority of antivirus do not consider it a virus.
FORScan 2.3.28 was not recognized by a single AV engine on virustotal.com:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/eb4 ... /detection
Neither were 2.3.27...
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/361 ... /detection
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/da1 ... /detection
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/016 ... /detection
So why is 2.3.29 classified as malware when you use the same binary packer for years now?
I even triggered a reanalysis on virustotal of 2.3.28 with the current versions of the scan engines. No detection!
Sorry, but I don't understand this. Deactivating AV scanners is not an option to me.
If there's no fix for this by the FORScan developers, I'll wait and check the subsequently released versions instead of running 2.3.29.