by building an own anti virus software: McMonkey maybe (only German-speaking understand that joke...)
Dude wrote:
HanPBF wrote:
Does code signing makes false positives anyway less probably?
No, because the AV works by looking for code patterns. You can have a signed exe with those patterns, so it'll be flagged.
That's why web apps are so much preferred...
If we want guarantee an exe to be non virus attacked runnable, some virtualization is needed.
Java has a VM and JIT compiling -> so anti virus knows the guy just running.
.NET -> also well known
Both are internally memory save (despite C# unmanaged code).
srod does build currently a scripting engine.
The engine itself may be false positive scanned; but if it runs some months and is changed not so much, scripts running on that machine are not "seen" by anti virus (at least the scripts are not interpreted).
20years of PureBasic... and how much faster are we today?
How fast is a scripting engine today compared to a same price expected PC 15 years ago?
Ok... shorter: I think it is not possible to protect an executable from false positive anti virus detection as the concept is to observe and to denunciate (better some more falses than to less positives...)
You build software with PureBasic, try the best to not be tracked by anti virus and Your customer gets the same problem with Your software and has himself write to his anti virus provider.