- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 8,712
- Reaction score
- 7,176
- Points
- 393
- Location
- USA
- Printer Model
- Canon MB5120, Pencil
Not finding that web site, webster. Do you mean VirusTotal?You'd be better off submitting the file to totalscan
Virus Total found no hits with the file I uploaded here. Zero.
Did you scan The Hat's file? What AV app do you use?
A wee bit dramatic but Norton does have a higher false positive rate. Kaspersky is rated best in this respect but I wouldn't use it if you paid me. Utilities such as the Service Tools may use snippets of well known or suspicious heuristic code that causes AV applications to flag the files as bad. Also, his file may have snippets of code that are an issue. I did not test his file further. You can always override Norton and keep and run the file. Also, you can turn off the pop up screen warnings while keeping functions intact so as to be less annoyed if that is your want.Norton has a habit of screaming Chicken Little at the slightest thing
The Hat changed the extension of an EXE file instead of Zipping or Raring the file. I love him but this is bad etiquette and may result in the file being flagged as bad and be blocked.
From my link above:
That sums up my approach. I recommend a couple of internet security apps besides Norton. The false positives your refer to are so infrequent in my daily internet travels that it is an inconsequential factor, especially since I can override Norton if desired.Expert users who do not care about wrongly blocked files/websites (false alarms) or user-dependent detections, are free to rely on the protection rates instead of our awards ranking which takes those in consideration.
To me, Norton represents a well functioning security package, flaws and all, that at $15 for 5 licenses (currently) is a good deal that has kept me safe, albeit you must still use your own brain to prevent "social engineering" infections no matter which security app you use.