PureBasic Forums - English

Mijikai wrote:It wont fix broken AV software thats for sure.

True, but the current code base generates patterns that AV software falsely detects as malware, so I'm hoping the new compiler with the new code base will generate entirely new code patterns that won't be recognized as "malware" anymore. Or is that not how it will work?

@Mijikai and @BarryG

I think you both are right. The irony is probably that false positives are a problem others have too. If it gets a noticably smaller problem für PureBasic users, is probably just guesswork. Especially if you consider the fact that while we talk about it, the AV creators might just test their latest great detection method which will throw all homebrew and smaller creators into a brand new support hell for false positives

So yes, it will change something. But will it make the near future better for small entities about false positives?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bitblazer wrote:@Mijikai and @BarryG

I think you both are right. The irony is probably that false positives are a problem others have too. If it gets a noticably smaller problem für PureBasic users, is probably just guesswork. Especially if you consider the fact that while we talk about it, the AV creators might just test their latest great detection method which will throw all homebrew and smaller creators into a brand new support hell for false positives

So yes, it will change something. But will it make the near future better for small entities about false positives?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dont think beeing lazy is a good strategy especially if you want to have success.
Talk to the AVs or edjucate your customers its really not that hard.
Imho some people are just not fit for business and always look for excuses.

BarryG wrote:

Saki wrote:First of all, it has to run stably.

Although, I wonder if the number of virus false-positives may suddenly reduce/disappear due to the new code base?

No. C compiled programs just have the same problem with AV's.

Off topic, but the best way to get past the AV programs is to sign your code and then submit it to the AV system 'whitelist' system. They will then look for your signature in the AV and not flag you in the future.

I removed this AV stuff from the system long ago.
Since I primarily use Win10, I rely on the built-in Defender.
Otherwise, there is the "Sandbox" feature in Windows.
who does not know this, just google it.
A VM can do the same !

Primarily, the OS should take care of such things.

AV software lives to report viruses.
The more it reports, the more indispensable it seems.
First create hysteria, then live from it.

DoubleDutch wrote:the best way to get past the AV programs is to sign your code and then submit it to the AV system 'whitelist' system.

Signing doesn't do jack. As you said, this is OT to this thread, so search my other posts where I link to devs who sign their code but still get flagged.

Not just signing, that does nothing. You need to contact the AV people and submit your program to their whitelist. Then they add your sig to their list.

Here is a reply from one of the AV companies to show you that this happens...

>The SecureAPlus team have reviewed the software, and we have decided we will add your digital certificate into the SecureAPlus trusted certificate global list.
>
>Best regards,
>Cleman
>The SecureAPlus Team

Josh wrote:Somehow it's like a coop of startled chickens here.

Finding that more amusing than I should...

Wow, so epic news I've missed while diving into own rises&falls.
For sure it is a great plan about C/C++ and I only wish a success for Purebasic/Spiderbasic future
// still didn't read enough

For me, the game changer is compiling for ubiquitous computing devices like raspberry pi or "insert arm knockoff here".
To get out from under Windows bloat with near equivalent PB and SB syntax will be awesome.

New article from Fred (April 23)
Sneak peek to C generated code

Marc56us thanks for the heads up!
That is an awesome blog post. IM EXCITED!
And no I am not concerned about compilation speed -- ultimately we want the best compilation possible, and that of course will take more time than say FASM which doesn't do any optimisation, so it will become a PRIVILEGE for us basic coders to be able to have our programs compiled with the optimised power of a C compiler, which after decades are arguably the best on the planet

From the example on the blog

Code: Select all

PB_InitDesktop();

But the Desktop library is not used in the code!

It's needed to get DPI information. It's not because you don't explicitly use a library that it's not used internally by another library.