guglthree.blogg.se

1. 2015 WIN32 MALWARE GEN AVAST FALSE POSITIVE SOFTWARE
2. 2015 WIN32 MALWARE GEN AVAST FALSE POSITIVE CODE

I just try and explain to developers my own understanding when I see such questions, since that's about the best response they're likely to receive from Microsoft itself, albeit with a typically longer delay. I'm simply a consumer user of their products with a security background who's been involved in the use and online support of these products since their initial beta and release phases in the Please note that I'm not an official Microsoft representative.

So the only system that truly makes sense is something like the Authenticode certificate based system that Microsoft has already had in place for more than a decade, since this allows the signing and so identification and integrity validation of the executableĬode itself, as well as the application's developer in the case of an Extended Validation certificate.Ĭreating any alternative system which subverts this Authenticode system in any way is simply asking for a false-positive detection. The automation of this malware creation and packaging means that such a whitelist would quickly become unmanageable no matter how efficient the system operating it might seem initially. Much larger numbers of individual malware now created daily.

2015 WIN32 MALWARE GEN AVAST FALSE POSITIVE SOFTWARE

If you think logically about this situation, you quickly realize that it's not possible for Microsoft to scale the operation of a whitelist for the large numbers of individual software applications that are created in order to remain vigilant against the whitelist) or false-positive prevention program. This is part of the reason that Microsoft indicates in its resources for developers, Software Developers FAQ that they don't accept files for a known list (e.g. The additional problem is that virtually all software that obfuscates or uses otherwise questionable practices for whatever possibly valid reason, has later been abused by malware purveyors in an attempt to circumvent the Microsoft and other security product detection

2015 WIN32 MALWARE GEN AVAST FALSE POSITIVE CODE

Though your product is using this encryption and obfuscation via packers in an attempt to protect the executable code from malware, there's simply no way that the behavioral and other security product detection modules can know this, so it will of courseīe treated exactly like any unknown, potentially malicious piece of software. You've perfectly described the behavior within your product that will never truly harmonize with the way that Windows Defender and the other Microsoft security products within Windows operate to protect their customers.