You might as well just digitally sign your EXE, it is easier and faster than going through the taggant bureaucracy. #1 - Taggant started as a good idea but ended up reinventing digital signatures. Or am I wrong? Am I forced to spend money just for a completely non profit hobby? I thought the taggant scheme was to mitigate these problems. Should I go with the taggant scheme for my own personal packer, and then even digitally signing all downloads I make that use the packer as well? Is that even effective? Or is it a fundamental problem due to how packers are designed,and must I continue doing the current method of advising companies of the packer I use in every single case, with the insistance that they are false positives? Or is this a general problem with the AV industry in general with packers. I am seriously considering deploying my own executable packer but I am wondering on the best practises to mitigate false positives in future. I noticed similar problems with kkrunchy sadly. I feel this is a losing battle, possibly due to BEP being used by malware devs too.
Avg false positive win32 heur download#
I noticed a lot of false positives with BEP and so this is turning into quite a problem, especially with AV vendors are blocking download URLs to my demos, as part of thier site screening services. I tried explaining to Google that the files are all false positives but no action is taken. However, I do get false positives, coming to the point that now Google blocks my demo downloads in their browser.
This works out well since it was optimized for demoscene productions and thus gives a very good compression ratio. I have been packing my demo prods with beroexepacker. This is starting to turn into a serious problem for me.
0 kommentar(er)
