or even impossible as far as I can tell). (I'm look at you, Webroot, who didn't actually evaluate/act on Systemus even after I submitted it twice and you, McAfee in several guises, who has lots of fiddly restrictions and a few others who make submitting arduous - only webform with odd fields, only via forum, only via installed AV(!), only by author (not a user), etc. (See end of for my comment and BGM's response.)Īs several developers noted in that Systemus thread (and many other threads), this can be frustrating: each antivirus false positive is going to discourage users from experimenting with the software, but getting each AV vendor to evaluate each iteration (or even periodic stable releases) is like playing whack-a-mole at the bottom of the deep end of the pool using your nondominant foot with one eye closed and with some moles stuck in the up position. Some other person also may have submitted FP requests during that few weeks or the intervening months. FPs also decreased on Jotti (no details) and MetaDefender (8 to 5) during those few weeks. I'm not sure why we had different totals, but I can imagine several possibilities (e.g., maybe BGM ran his PE Studio analysis a couple of weeks before his reply in the thread or maybe he used.

BGM reported 23/69 for VT in his response. Over the intervening couple of weeks, VirusTotal varied from 23 FPs initially, to 15 minimum, to 17. The results did improve (fewer presumably FPs), but are far from perfect.Īt the end of 2020, I submitted Systemus to a half-dozen-ish vendors, plus a few more later on.

Just out of curiosity, I ran Systemus through three meta-scanners, Jotti, VirusTotal, and MetaDefender, two days ago just to see what had changed. Systemus had problems with false positives from antivirus products. Systemus is a handy dandy system admin tool that BGM created for N.A.N.Y. First, a quick thanks to BGM, Mouser, and many other authors who have created useful, or at least interesting, tools for us.

Pestudio paloalto