Classic99 Updates

[Retrospect]

It'd be funny if Tursi and the guys at VICE did this , and then started a price-war.  

[+OLD CS1]

21 minutes ago, Retrospect said:

It'd be funny if Tursi and the guys at VICE did this , and then started a price-war.  

To relive the 80s, yeah?

[jenorton]

Ok,  Just tried with Spectrum's "security suite" (provided by f_secure), and it didn't like something about cartpack.dll.

 

My Windows defender, however, isn't letting out a peep.

 

Interestingly, I'm using JAWS, which is probably the most famous commercial screen reader (for the blind/visually impaired).  This so-called "security suite" says something relating to JAWS is also harmful.  Now, JAWS is routinely used/downloaded by many thousands of computer users who have a need for it.  I am VERY certain they have crossed all the T'sand dotted all the I's as far as application signing are concerned, and, they are still getting a false possitive from F_Secure.  However, if JAWS were harmful to computer users, there'd be an uproar in the AT community.

 

So, I don't trust absolutely everything coming from my virus scanner.

 

Now, off to Freedom Scientific to see about the false possitive with one of their programs.

 

Cheers!

[+OLD CS1]

Almost every antivirus vendor has a method of reporting suspected false-positives, either via the program GUI or a website.  I recommend people like us familiarize ourselves with the process as this is going to get worse before it gets better, especially for unsigned software.

[+arcadeshopper]

1 hour ago, OLD CS1 said:

Almost every antivirus vendor has a method of reporting suspected false-positives, either via the program GUI or a website.  I recommend people like us familiarize ourselves with the process as this is going to get worse before it gets better, especially for unsigned software.

I've done this with malwarebytes many times..