User forums > Nightly builds
The 30 August 2014 build (9884) is out.
eckard_klotz:
Hello SteelRat.
Since Code::Blocks is freeware it has to be registered no where even it is an oficial release.
To register it in a list of an virus-scanner provider as "False Positive detected" means to give him a chance to update his product. Otherwise every user with this virus-scanner may have problems to download a nightly, since it is not posible to download it without the "CbLauncher.exe".
I think today there are good reasons to have a virus-scanner. And I think it is not realy a good idea to skip it since it has problems with only one application.
Regards,
Eckard.
oBFusCATed:
--- Quote from: jens on September 01, 2014, 10:28:18 pm ---It should work if you remove the line completely from debian/control.
g++ should depend on the correct libstdc++-dev automatically,
and g++ is a dependency of the build-essential-package which is an automatic dependency of the debian build-system.
I don't know if it also works for older revisions of debian-based distro's, but on wheezy it seems to work.
--- End quote ---
It worked, but it didn't pick the revision number correctly...
RomanV:
--- Quote from: jens on September 03, 2014, 11:11:31 am ---
--- Quote from: RomanV on September 03, 2014, 11:03:48 am ---Avast antivirus is complaining there is a virus/malware in this binary (for Windows).
--- End quote ---
Search the forum.
My (very personal) opinin:
there is a malware on your system called avast.
--- End quote ---
I agree. I personally think it's False Positive result of Avast's heuristics. Avast only complained about this build. I usually install all nightly builds. And it was the first time Avast complained about the build.
But Avast itself is not top-level antivirus. I have many friends in IT security field which do not seriously think about Avast.
I posted my initial message because I just wanted other people to know about it to Code::Blocks community. Because I think some other users of Code::Blocks also use Avast and they may encounter the same false positive result of the scan.
White-Tiger:
hey... avast! is quite good ;) There aren't that much more AV's that are better (and free)
And what is more important to me then the count of viruses/malware it detects is simply the performance. And avast! is also good with that one. Its features and feeling is quite good ;) (or at least was, it's been a few years since I last used an AV or software firewall)
And complaining about an AV because of false positives is also not a really good idea. They at least increase your security to some point ;) Plus you can easily bypass them if you're really sure everything is ok. Just use your AV right.
It's also the user of the AV who needs to take actions and report that false positive, not the developer of the software. Because you've got the AV, you've got the tools to report the false positive not the dev. (well some offer an online form without using their AV, but others don't. Also, why should a dev really care if only 1 AV got problems he didn't directly cause?)
P.S. avast! doesn't seem to report it anymore: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/c892433b6092890716e76ee662877eb566ee43fdafc6e821ec9f602364c3f0ce/analysis/1409915475/
eckard_klotz:
Hello Everybody.
I agree that the user of the anti virus software has to report the "false positive" detection to his av-scanner provider. But I think it would be helpful if there would be a topic in the forum of code::blocks, that can be used to post information about this. It may be useful, if every kind of anti virus software has its own sub-topic. Other users can see, what is already reported if the reporter posts the ticket-number.
In my case I found in the forum the post http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,19182.0.html, where I learned that afb45 already reported a similar "false positive" detection under the ticked number " submission [3491738]" in April. But his detection reported the detection of "Trojan.Gen.SMH" while in my case the "Suspicious.Cloud.7.F" was detected. For some reasons my first report to Symantec under the ticket-number "submission (3590276)" last month was not successful. Thus I reported it new today under the ticket-number "submission (3613580)".
I hope this information is helpful for other users of Symantec which have a similar problem.
Best regards,
Eckard.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version