heartbone wrote:SFSxOI wrote:{snip}If this is a "study" and you are a malware analysis person and its your daily business you would have known from the very beginning you can't analyze a 'false positive' (or even an actual malware positive) for a study while specifically excluding the conditional environment yet you specifically excluded such by using and then indirectly declairing 'Virus Total' as correct when you have no empirical proof that it is and you would have known that depending on the cosmetic results of if something is reported as or not reported as a false positive does not tell you if the cause still exists or not when in reality the cause still exists.{snip}
I'm not trying to be mean here, but come on man
are you freaking shitting me?
That's not even a sentence!
Your first post in this thread was gobbledygooked enough, but come on man!
It was actually intended for him, as was, mostly, my first post in the thread, so it wasn't really intended for the overall audience exactly. Any person whose "daily business is malware analysis" should understand it, he implies the expertise. It wasn't intended to be a sentence.
Didelphodon wrote:
We're not analysing false positives, we're analysing and trying to detect what leads to such in terms of Purebasic. It's the classical trial and error concept and the approach of finding some specific clues that lead to further ideas and impressions - as I said, the black box approach.
Didelphodon wrote:
My daily business is malware analysis, reverse engineering and computer forensics .....
Despite later claims, despite the first post we made being a glaring sign that any novice "daily business is malware analysis" person would have seen, despite basically giving him the answer indirectly which he should have already known if he was a knowledgeable "malware analysis" person and would have already told you about, he defends a flawed and false time wasting methodology by defending on line AV scanning packages as definitive when it is impossible for them to be definitive for analysis to determine "trying to detect what leads to such in terms of Purebasic." The only conclusion which can be reached by such is what everyone already knows overall in this thread and that is some AV packages will detect a PureBasic executable as a 'false positive' and some won't. Its the same scenario played out thousands of times daily across all sectors of software/computer usage, has been for years, and the conclusion is always the same overall - some AV packages will detect certain executables as a 'false positive' and some won't. Yet, no one, not even him, is exploring the question as to
why some will report it and some will not, and not that some do report it and some do not, despite there being an actual reason why that happens that any novice "daily business is malware analysis" person, any knowledgable insighful person with an understanding of how AV detection really works, would ask in any 'study'. The exploration of that question is one path that will lead to the answer for "such in terms of Purebasic." Exploring that question would have been the first stop on the path for any person whose "daily business is malware analysis" for any study they were conducting into "trying to detect what leads to such in terms of PureBasic."
If he does this as a professional expert (he implies such which is highly doubtful and suspect), based upon his "computer forensics" I shudder to think how many would have been convicted of crimes they did not commit.
The only person who has come close to hinting at detecting "what leads to such in terms of Purebasic." , not that his specific example was the cause its self (its more of a symptom) but instead it hints at "what leads to such in terms of Purebasic." , the only person was doctorized in the 15th post in this thread.
The advantage of a 64 bit operating system over a 32 bit operating system comes down to only being twice the headache.
