Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jv16" data-source="post: 1058019" data-attributes="member: 98343">As said, I don&#039;t really know how I could affect the entropy of the binary file. I&#039;m a programmer, I write code. What kind of binary file the compiler produces from my code, I can affect but not that much. Besides, I think it shouldn&#039;t be my job to dance around compiling my software in a way that a few lesser known antivirus products do not produce false positives. It should be the antivirus product developers who should work on preventing false positives. Or the very least, these antivirus companies should provide an easy to use &quot;report false positive&quot; functionality, which they would then actually monitor.I use normal Windows API calls to perform a http get request. None of my code touches raw sockets in any ways. I suspect the socket code is relating to some shared library that I use, which might also contain such functionality. I will see if I can remove those libraries from the program.The software already displays every single path it would remove during the uninstallation, before the uninstallation starts and instructs the user to verify the list before proceeding and user can freely edit the list of paths as well. The software doesn&#039;t remove anything without first showing it to the user. The mentioned issue about incorrect analysis by Uninstalr is indeed a known issue in the current version and will be addressed with the next version. The development of the next version has taken some time, because I want to address this issue properly, with multiple new safeguards.The incorrect analysis issues were not detected in the testing that happened before the initial version release. This testing included both private and public beta testing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jv16, post: 1058019, member: 98343"] As said, I don't really know how I could affect the entropy of the binary file. I'm a programmer, I write code. What kind of binary file the compiler produces from my code, I can affect but not that much. Besides, I think it shouldn't be my job to dance around compiling my software in a way that a few lesser known antivirus products do not produce false positives. It should be the antivirus product developers who should work on preventing false positives. Or the very least, these antivirus companies should provide an easy to use "report false positive" functionality, which they would then actually monitor. I use normal Windows API calls to perform a http get request. None of my code touches raw sockets in any ways. I suspect the socket code is relating to some shared library that I use, which might also contain such functionality. I will see if I can remove those libraries from the program. The software already displays every single path it would remove during the uninstallation, before the uninstallation starts and instructs the user to verify the list before proceeding and user can freely edit the list of paths as well. The software doesn't remove anything without first showing it to the user. The mentioned issue about incorrect analysis by Uninstalr is indeed a known issue in the current version and will be addressed with the next version. The development of the next version has taken some time, because I want to address this issue properly, with multiple new safeguards. The incorrect analysis issues were not detected in the testing that happened before the initial version release. This testing included both private and public beta testing. [/QUOTE]

Verification