something), to have false positives on VirusTotal for a
handful of > vendors. I've never heard of SecureAge or Trapmine
(hmm, maybe it > *would* flag Minesweeper...), and I'm pretty well
educated in the > anti-malware space, so if it were me, I'd just
ignore those false > positi
positives on VirusTotal for a handful of
> vendors. I've never heard of SecureAge or Trapmine (hmm, maybe it
> *would* flag Minesweeper...), and I'm pretty well educated in the
> anti-malware space, so if it were me, I'd just ignore those false
> positives and pay attention to the credibl
of SecureAge or Trapmine (hmm, maybe it
*would* flag Minesweeper...), and I'm pretty well educated in the
anti-malware space, so if it were me, I'd just ignore those false
positives and pay attention to the credible AV software results (and the
Community Score).
You may have thought you were joking
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:21 AM Sylwester Rutkowski wrote:
The setup-x86_64.exe is reported as malicious at
> https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/edd0a64dc65087ffe453ca94b267169b39458a983b29ac31320fcaa983d0f97e/detection
>
> Can this be resolved somehow?
This is, of course, a false positive.
in the
anti-malware space, so if it were me, I'd just ignore those false
positives and pay attention to the credible AV software results (and the
Community Score).
If you have some corporate policy requiring things to have 0 detections
on VirusTotal or something, your only recourse is to contact
Hi,
The setup-x86_64.exe is reported as malicious at
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/edd0a64dc65087ffe453ca94b267169b39458a983b29ac31320fcaa983d0f97e/detection
Can this be resolved somehow?
Thanks,
Sylwester
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
ct: Re: Malwarebytes flags qdbusviewer-qt5.exe as Adware.Elex malware
On 2017-03-20 07:53, Ed Koerber via cygwin wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2017 12:20 PM, Ed Koerber via cygwin wrote:
>> I am using the following version of cygwin on a Windows 7 computer:
>> $ uname -a
>> CYGWI
;> Why does Malwarebytes flag this file:
>> C:\cygwin\usr\x86_64-w64-mingw32\sys-root\mingw\bin\qdbusviewer-qt5.exe
>> as Adware.Elex malware?
> Probable problem with Malwarebytes incorrectly flags the
> qdbusviewer-qt5.exe file reported here:
> https://forums.malwarebytes
Probable problem with Malwarebytes incorrectly flags the qdbusviewer-qt5.exe
file reported here:
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/197975-malwarebytes-flags-qdbusviewer-qt5exe-as-adwareelex-malware/
Stay tuned for the response.
From: Ed Koerber via cygwin
On 03/19/2017 01:23 PM, René Berber wrote:
On 3/19/2017 12:18 PM, Ed Koerber via cygwin wrote:
It bears asking to be thorough... are we sure that the cygwin package
has not been compromised somehow?
You are correct in not taking unsubstantiated remarks as useful.
We usually run the program
; CYGWIN_NT-6.1 e250 2.6.0(0.304/5/3) 2016-08-31 14:27 i686 Cygwin
>>> Why does Malwarebytes flag this file:
>>> C:\cygwin\usr\x86_64-w64-mingw32\sys-root\mingw\bin\qdbusviewer-qt5.exe
>>> as Adware.Elex malware?
>> Probably because virus scanners are amongst the d
On 3/19/2017 6:05 PM, Chris Johnson wrote:
> Don't virus scanners in general get caught by other virus scanner
> because their databases have the same signatures as the viruses they
> look for? I don't know how to get around this other than an exclusion
> list.
Off-topic, this has nothing to do
Back to the list, and keep it there.
Forwarded Message
From: Chris Johnson
To: Do not reply
I'm probably going to catch hell for this.
Don't virus scanners in general get caught by other virus scanner
because their databases have the same signatures as the viruses they
On 3/19/2017 12:18 PM, Ed Koerber via cygwin wrote:
> It bears asking to be thorough... are we sure that the cygwin package
> has not been compromised somehow?
You are correct in not taking unsubstantiated remarks as useful.
We usually run the program in question through
Subject: Re: Malwarebytes flags qdbusviewer-qt5.exe as Adware.Elex malware
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ed Koerber via cygwin
<cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> I am using the following version of cygwin on a Windows 7 computer:
>
> $ uname -a
> CYGWIN_NT-6.1 e250 2.6.0(0.304/5/3) 2016-0
file:
>
> C:\cygwin\usr\x86_64-w64-mingw32\sys-root\mingw\bin\qdbusviewer-qt5.exe
>
> as Adware.Elex malware?
Probably because virus scanners are amongst the dumbest software on earth?
If you were to report it to Malwarebytes as a suspected false positive
that would be helpful.
I am using the following version of cygwin on a Windows 7 computer:
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-6.1 e250 2.6.0(0.304/5/3) 2016-08-31 14:27 i686 Cygwin
Why does Malwarebytes flag this file:
C:\cygwin\usr\x86_64-w64-mingw32\sys-root\mingw\bin\qdbusviewer-qt5.exe
as Adware.Elex malware
Hi Cygwinners,
On 10/06/2016 3:19 AM, David Stacey wrote:
On 09/06/16 17:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 9 18:02, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 09/06/2016 17:52, Jack Adrian Zappa wrote:
Are you referring to the 83.dotm file? Looks highly suspicious. o.O
It is clearly spam or worse.
But
Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
> On Jun 9 18:02, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 17:52, Jack Adrian Zappa wrote:
>> > Are you referring to the 83.dotm file? Looks highly suspicious. o.O
>> >
>>
>> It is clearly spam or worse.
>>
>> But some of them will always pass whatever filter the
On 09/06/16 17:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 9 18:02, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 09/06/2016 17:52, Jack Adrian Zappa wrote:
Are you referring to the 83.dotm file? Looks highly suspicious. o.O
It is clearly spam or worse.
But some of them will always pass whatever filter the cygwin mail
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 9 18:02, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 17:52, Jack Adrian Zappa wrote:
>> > Are you referring to the 83.dotm file? Looks highly suspicious. o.O
>> >
>>
>> It is clearly spam or worse.
>>
>> But some of them will always
On Jun 9 18:02, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 17:52, Jack Adrian Zappa wrote:
> > Are you referring to the 83.dotm file? Looks highly suspicious. o.O
> >
>
> It is clearly spam or worse.
>
> But some of them will always pass whatever filter the cygwin mail
> server is implementing.
>
On 09/06/2016 17:52, Jack Adrian Zappa wrote:
Are you referring to the 83.dotm file? Looks highly suspicious. o.O
It is clearly spam or worse.
But some of them will always pass whatever filter the cygwin mail
server is implementing.
Some of them are reaching any mailbox also company's one.
Marco Atzeri <marco.atz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/06/2016 17:08, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Cygwin,
>>> A little supposition here, but it appears that the recent posting
>>> from Viverra Inc. contained a malicious attac
On 09/06/2016 17:08, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
Dear Cygwin,
A little supposition here, but it appears that the recent posting
from Viverra Inc. contained a malicious attachment, as detected by
my company's e-mail malware detection as it intercepted the recent
digest. I need now to appeal to them
Dear Cygwin,
A little supposition here, but it appears that the recent posting
from Viverra Inc. contained a malicious attachment, as detected by
my company's e-mail malware detection as it intercepted the recent
digest. I need now to appeal to them to allow me to continue
receiving e-mail
On 7/14/2015 5:21 AM, Brent wrote:
On my work computer today, I ran cygwin's setup-x86_64.exe in order to get the
latest and greatest code.
Soon afterwards, Norton Business Suite autoran, and claimed that the new mintty
is malware (to be precise: WS.Malware.2).
This has never happened before
On 7/14/2015 11:56 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 7/14/2015 5:21 AM, Brent wrote:
Hi Brenat,
please open a false positive report with Norton
Likely they will recognize the mistake and amend their database
Regards
Marco
As Symantec Endpoint Protection had the same problem
I opened a false
On my work computer today, I ran cygwin's setup-x86_64.exe in order to get the
latest and greatest code.
Soon afterwards, Norton Business Suite autoran, and claimed that the new mintty
is malware (to be precise: WS.Malware.2).
This has never happened before: both Norton and cygwin (including
Following up to https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00204.html
having just joined this mailing list.
Cygwin32 all installed files current according to setup.ini with
setup-timestamp: 1413486609
python-setuptools-0.6.34-1.tar.bz2
AVG updated itself to 2015.0.5315 with virus db 4181/8400
Hi cygwin python maintainers and users,
AVG Free detects malware in the gui.exe and gui-32.exe files which
are part of the cygwin 64-bit versions of the python2 and python3
setuptools package.
These files are provided by the python-setuptools packages.
Reinstalling these packages will repair
On 10/08/2014 17:39, Doug Henderson wrote:
Hi cygwin python maintainers and users,
AVG Free detects malware in the gui.exe and gui-32.exe files which
are part of the cygwin 64-bit versions of the python2 and python3
setuptools package.
These files are provided by the python-setuptools packages
Greetings, Doug Henderson!
Hi cygwin python maintainers and users,
AVG Free detects malware in the gui.exe and gui-32.exe files which
are part of the cygwin 64-bit versions of the python2 and python3
setuptools package.
The report indicate the corrupted executable file. That's not a virus
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/08/2014 17:39, Doug Henderson wrote:
snip
The detection of problems with these 4 files appears to be a false
positive.
snip
Hi Doug
Can you open a false positive report to AVG ?
Greetings, Wes Kaefer!
MGW: Heuristic.BehavesLike.Win32.ModifiedUPX.F...
---^
Heuristics. Please open your eyes before posting.
It did not detected anything, it suspected it may have something akin to a
known malware. Check the hash, and it is the same, file a false positive
report
are capable of unpacking UPX
archives since... I really can't remember, most of the scanners I've been
working with were capable of that in '95. May be earlier.
Blatantly marking anything that is packed with UPX as a malware is... telling
us so much about the quality of scanner code and sanity
MGW: Heuristic.BehavesLike.Win32.ModifiedUPX.F...
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
The Malware Detectors are wrong. The program was built on Linux so it
isn't likely that a Windows virus crept in.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http
I agree, it probably does not have a virus; but it has a virus signature.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Wes Kaefer wrote:
I agree, it probably does not have a virus; but it has a virus signature.
So your virus detection is issuing a false positive. You need to fix that.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Wes Kaefer wrote:
I agree, it probably does not have a virus; but it has a virus signature.
This is covered in the FAQ at http://cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.setup.virus
Is Cygwin Setup, or one of the packages, infected with a virus?
Unlikely. Unless you
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:36:29PM +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Wes Kaefer wrote:
I agree, it probably does not have a virus; but it has a virus signature.
This is covered in the FAQ at http://cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.setup.virus
Thanks for pointing that
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:36:29PM +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Wes Kaefer wrote:
I agree, it probably does not have a virus; but it has a virus signature.
This is covered in the FAQ at
Norton flagged regtool.exe and update-mime-database as malware in your
latest distribution.
--
James A. Rome
Consultant
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
865 482-5643
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 9:50 AM, James Rome wrote:
Norton flagged regtool.exe and update-mime-database as malware in your
latest distribution.
--
James A. Rome
Consultant
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
865 482-5643
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ
James Rome wrote:
Norton flagged regtool.exe and update-mime-database as malware in your
latest distribution.
This is likely a false positive, probably from some heuristic.
http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/1a11984377dcd2c68eb428397c124343e27e8fca3a178c2c405f5f4b775eeaed-1261839312
Besides not being a cygwin util (as others have mentioned), whenever
I see someone posting an unsolicited, out-of-any-context
advertisement (spam) like this, my first thought is that someone is
trying to induce me to install their new trojan (or keylogger,
bot-sw, etc).
Of course if they post
Linda Walsh wrote:
Besides not being a cygwin util (as others have mentioned), whenever
I see someone posting an unsolicited, out-of-any-context
advertisement (spam) like this, my first thought is that someone is
trying to induce me to install their new trojan (or keylogger,
bot-sw, etc).
Of
Fred Ma wrote:
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
Thanks for your response. In summary
While it's true that not many viruses will target Cygwin directly,
there are some that target folders based on string matching. For
instance, a few years ago my computer at work caught a virus which
apparently tried to spread itself through peer-to-peer file-sharing.
It looked for folders with
Fred Ma wrote:
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
I'd still be wary of as-yet-unknown viruses
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe
Fred Ma wrote:
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
Any such reports on this list in the past have
Fred Ma wrote:
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
Larry Hall:
Any such reports on this list
Fred Ma wrote:
Fred Ma wrote:
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
Larry Hall:
Any such reports
Fred Ma wrote:
Fred Ma wrote:
After some surfing, I haven't found any evidence of malware targetting
cygwin. I'm considering excluding the massive file tree from scans
(AV, SpyBot, AdAware). I'd be interested in more experienced opinions
about this. Thanks.
Larry Hall:
Any such reports
56 matches
Mail list logo
