User forums > Nightly builds
The 30 August 2014 build (9884) is out.
RomanV:
BTW I submitted this build to VirusTotal. See the result:
https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/b187b0b7cf24dc67740f5e8d844bd0d43e6f81ecf7590a6630b9a0cf2b4d39bc/analysis/1410267798/
So it's clean. Strange, but even Avast shows it as clean. While on desktop Avast (with latest updates) shows:
Infection blocked
URL
hxxp://softlayer-dal.dl.sourceforge.net/project/codeblocks/Binaries/Nightlies/2014/CB_20140830_rev9884_win32.7z|CbLauncher.exe
Infection
Win32:Evo-gen [Susp]
eckard_klotz:
Hello White-Tiger
--- Quote ---And false positives don't disappear by the first report, to have a false positive to disappear a lot of people have to report it. Why should the AV company trust the first one to report it? Why should it really be a false positive? You only know if you've got enough data.
--- End quote ---
If you report a false positive detection you also have the podibility to upload the effacted file. Thats how I did it.
Best regards,
Eckard.
PS.: How ever, I miss in this discussion the comments of the developers and/or the forum admin. Even if I accept, that I have to do the report and upload for my av-software, I still think an own sub-forum to post information about this for other users would be a great help for all of us.
White-Tiger:
--- Quote from: RomanV on September 09, 2014, 03:10:42 pm ---[...]
So it's clean. Strange, but even Avast shows it as clean. While on desktop Avast (with latest updates) shows:
Infection blocked
[...]
--- End quote ---
well... avast! doesn't just do some on-access scan as most simple and free AV's do, it also checks HTTP,SMTP, etc. traffic and intercepts things before they even arrive on your HDD / PC
And I guess it's basically blocking the URL... so if you had the file on your local PC, it wouldn't even complain...
It's actually weird that it behaves this differently... and it looks like the traffic filter isn't up-to-date^^
Anyway, did you try to manually check for updates for avast!? Maybe you're even using an older version :P VirusTotal is kinda up-to-date in that regard
oBFusCATed:
--- Quote from: eckard_klotz on September 09, 2014, 03:30:00 pm ---PS.: How ever, I miss in this discussion the comments of the developers and/or the forum admin.
--- End quote ---
You've asked for it: I wouldn't have bothered to do this even if I was using windows... I'm not so I can't care less.
If you don't trust us, then build everything from the sources...
eckard_klotz:
Hello Developers.
--- Quote ---If you don't trust us, then build everything from the sources...
--- End quote ---
For me this is not question of trusting your work. If I would not trust you I would not user Code::Blocks. Don't ask me why av-tools detect C::B parts as potential viruses. Furthermore if you report them the "false positive" with an upload of the binary detected as suspicious, they agree that it was a "false positive" and set it on their white-list until they start to search for a new virus that behaves like a part of C::B. Then you get the next "false positive" and a new report has to be done.
Even this is a never ending story, we have to deal with it and this means when ever a "false positive" detection occures, somebody has to report it and share the report as well as the result with the community. The reason why I ask for a sub-forum is, that this makes it easier for the useres to share information about reporting "fasle positive" detections. If we the user have to do it, it would be extremly helpful to know if sombody already has done it for a specific detection-case and for a specific av-tool. An other advantage may be that this gives us the chance to collect some historical data. Symantec offers the posibility to add some additional information. Thus I noted down all available ticket-numbers I found here in the forum associated with cblauncher in the hope to animate them to find a more longlasting solution.
I don't want to blame you for the fact that av-tools detect C::B bianries as suspicious. My intention is to help you and other useres to deal in a constuctive way with this wrong detections.
Best regards,
Eckard.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version