Re: [clamav-users] Is the signature "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" really problematic ?

2022-04-11 Thread Al Varnell via clamav-users
On Apr 11, 2022, at 12:05 AM, alex via clamav-users wrote: > Is there a way to bypass the lifting of this signature, without completely > ignoring it, if it ultimately proves useful against other files? You can include an .fp file. See the documentation for format:

Re: [clamav-users] Is the signature "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" really problematic ?

2022-04-11 Thread alex via clamav-users
possible solutions. -Message d'origine- De : clamav-users De la part de G.W. Haywood via clamav-users Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2022 10:08 À : alex via clamav-users Cc : G.W. Haywood Objet : ⚠️ Re: [clamav-users] Is the signature "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" really problem

Re: [clamav-users] Is the signature "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" really problematic ?

2022-04-11 Thread G.W. Haywood via clamav-users
Hi there, On Mon, 11 Apr 2022, alex via clamav-users wrote: Recently, ClamAV sent us the following alert "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" on one of our executables. This software was developed by our teams and has not been modified since 2014. And suddenly, an alert is lifted... On a point of

[clamav-users] Is the signature "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" really problematic ?

2022-04-11 Thread alex via clamav-users
Hi all, Recently, ClamAV sent us the following alert "Win.Tool.Hoax-9939325-0" on one of our executables. This software was developed by our teams and has not been modified since 2014. And suddenly, an alert is lifted... After some research in the ClamAV VirusDB announcements, I found that this