Ironic isn’t it ? Nowaday, anti-virus are becoming more and more intrusives, and ‘thanks’ to heuristic approaches, the false positives raise a lot, while eradication or real virus are less and less common. When was your last real virus detection ? Mine was may be 5-6 years ago. Since then, i got many alerts, but all were just dumbs. Microsoft has made giant progress to counter virus spreading and execution with modern iterations of Windows (see ASLR, DEP, user mode, etc.).
My concern about anti-viruses is the famous heuristic approach which often flag legit PureBasic programs as contamined. I don’t know exactly how works an anti-virus, but I bet it builds a database with some code patterns found in real virus, and if this code pattern is found in an executable it will raise an alert. And here is really the problem: if PureBasic is used to make a trojan or a virus, then chances are high than the code pattern will be actually a purelibrary command, meaning than every other PureBasic program using this command will be flaged as well. It’s really a poor detection mechanism and I can’t understand why anti-virus maker don’t try to find other methods to detect threats. Since several years now, PureBasic programs (and even the official IDE) are regulary flagged as virus with no reasons, and such threads often popup on officials forums. I can imagine the face of a potential customer wanting install the demo version of PureBasic when a big alert saying ‘Warning Trojan.bigvirus.1337’ popup.
So what to do ? Actually a very few things can be done:
– always send false positives to the your anti-virus maker. The more they get, bigger are the chances they will improve their detection routines.
– change your anti-virus. well, some are better than other. If it doesn’t work with PureBasic, you can consider it as a bad one
I hope it will change, somewhen. Ha, dreams…