MS$$ defender kill pb application yesterday suddenly

[moricode]

MS$$ defender kill pb application yesterday suddenly on customer's pc after an MS update,
the client was frustrated and busy to try to restore it , disable widows update , uninstall window update , no help at all, last to turn off the defender permanently.

That's why use pb to develop commercial software is not a good choice , unless make friend with MS.

// Moved from "Coding Questions" to "General Discussion" (Kiffi)

[idle]

have you tried submitting the application to microsoft
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/filesubmission
your user can flag the program as exempt form windows defender as well rather than turning it off

[Caronte3D]

Yes it's a pain every time
Workaround: Tell your clients to make a windows defender exception in the folder where your program is installed so no need to totally disable it.

[infratec]

Or ... try to make you a friend of MS$$ and use code signing for your programs.

If you make 'professional' software for windows, you have to use code signing.
Without you can not come into the MS store for example.

[Fred]

That's why use pb to develop commercial software is not a good choice , unless make friend with MS.

As if it was a PB only issue, lot of software done in C/C++ are also wrongly tagged, so please don't assert such things if you don't know.

[deeproot]

That's why use pb to develop commercial software is not a good choice , unless make friend with MS.

As if it was a PB only issue, lot of software done in C/C++ are also wrongly tagged, so please don't assert such things if you don't know.

Exactly right! The problem is certainly not with PB.

I've had this same issue a number of times, the latest just three weeks ago with an old and valued customer. It was easily fixed by uninstalling the program (which would no longer execute after the MS update) and then a clean reinstall. The application, same version as before, then worked again with nothing reported by MS Defender. The customer's data, a big SQLite database, was not affected as it's stored separately. Customer was happy because other things broke on their system that were not as easy to fix!

I exclusively use Purebasic for my commercial 'desktop' software products for the last 12 years, Windows, Mac and Linux. It was, and remains, the best choice.

[BarryG]

That's why use pb to develop commercial software is not a good choice

I disagree, as does my PayPal account. Just whitelist your exe with the relevant anti-virus company with each update, as I do. And as many C coders do as seen on StackOverflow. This is not exclusively a PureBasic issue.

[Quin]

Seconding everything said here, PB is one of the best choices for comertial desktop app development that exists today, as well as casual apps.
BTW, if you're using MS defender, you definitely want to go turn off spynet. Microsoft calls this "Realtime protection" in the settings, but internally it's called Spynet. There's a reason for that, and all it does is send your data to MS and lead to more false positives
Since turning it off I hardly ever get my PB executables flagged, unless I compress them with UPX, but that makes sense unfortunately, and truth be told I've become less in favor of using UPX and similar packers the more I've learned about them. It compresses the executable on disk, but it means that the whole executable has to be uncompressed into application-private memory. With a normal executable, the OS can load just the pages that are needed on-demand into shared memory, and free those pages if memory gets tight, since it can always reload them from disk later. Besides, even with the new MSVC toolchain, PB's executables are impressively small.

[moricode]

Seconding everything said here, PB is one of the best choices for comertial desktop app development that exists today, as well as casual apps.
BTW, if you're using MS defender, you definitely want to go turn off spynet. Microsoft calls this "Realtime protection" in the settings, but internally it's called Spynet. There's a reason for that, and all it does is send your data to MS and lead to more false positives
Since turning it off I hardly ever get my PB executables flagged, unless I compress them with UPX, but that makes sense unfortunately, and truth be told I've become less in favor of using UPX and similar packers the more I've learned about them. It compresses the executable on disk, but it means that the whole executable has to be uncompressed into application-private memory. With a normal executable, the OS can load just the pages that are needed on-demand into shared memory, and free those pages if memory gets tight, since it can always reload them from disk later. Besides, even with the new MSVC toolchain, PB's executables are impressively small.

Thanks for this valuable information ,

I should also thanks to MS$$ who make so much "trouble" so that we developer has so much job to do for configuration that the customer don't know , we will never be jobless

of cause i like PB the way of language style and conception , but that also come with it's own obstacles and barriers , and it doesn't stop me either , i has totally discard the GUI system (widows and gadget , 2D drawing ... ) and build my own custom GUI from win32 API natively.

Thanks again.