if you have no answer...

closing threads is the solution?
I am not respoonsible for somebody posting the bashing content, you coud remove that, but instead you are closing the thread you do not like.

Now, please answer three questions, if I may ask.

1. If I have some code that cannot appear anywhere else than on my computer, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset. To entertain you?

2. If I am writing some code and right after compiling it is detected as virus, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset?

3. If I see it fit, I should have the rights not to submit anything, but still be able to work with that file, is that correct? Or, again you see bashing NOD somewhere?

 

Wich antivirus will provide you a immediate solution for a false positive?

 

If you don't want to submit something for verification why bother coming on here to complain about it?

 

> closing threads is the solution?

If it becomes personal, yes.

> 1. If I have some code that cannot appear anywhere else than on my computer, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset. To entertain you?

certainly.

> 2. If I am writing some code and right after compiling it is detected as virus, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset?

depends on what you're trying to code of course

> 3. If I see it fit, I should have the rights not to submit anything, but still be able to work with that file, is that correct? Or, again you see bashing NOD somewhere?

Where's bashing?
I didn't see anything.

 

we do not complain, but we just say why Marcos must bash all other AV's like, f-secure, kaspersky, dr.web, bitdefender, e-trust, avast, and all other AV's everytime someone ask question's about false positive...?
He told me dont bashing nod32, i am not doing that, i was telling the truth and he was bashing all other AV's...

from Marcos: This smells like a trolling so stop bashing NOD32 without a proof. I'm woroking with samples on a daily basis and see dozens of false positives from other AVs. If you have come across a false positive, just submit it to samples[at]eset.com and it will be fixed.

The thread is closed now

 

whenever there is some inconvenient question or discussion, somebody immediately comes up with bashing posts, that thread can be closed.

strange...

 

Marcos has not bashed others AVs. I think he tried to say that every AV has false positives, not only nod.

 

well i think that what Owner also try to s
Why everytime someone speak about nod32- false positive, he always speak about other AntiViruses warns for more false positive then nod32...
thats my opinion, thats what i see in this topic...

 

we are here not really talking here about false positives.
If code exhibits some virus-like activity, it obviously should be heuristically detected, and it is. But there also is no way knowing if it is really a virus or not. THAT IS WHY there is that PROBABLY word! If it is some common program that is detected by mistake, it should of course be analyzed and appropriate action taken. But if not, what everybody does, is just switching off NOD32. And it is STUPID, if developers refuse to see that, even when they are told.

 

Maybe because others Avs really have more false positives than nod32

 

Oh my God. we were speaking about nod32 false positivte and not other AV's and now you: Pain of Salvation and Marcos bashing all other AntiViruses that they have more false positive then nod32....
tss its a shame, nod32-lovers bashing all other AV's.... and we all know its not true,

 

As explained in another thread where you post, you can EXCLUDE some folders / files in AMON, and you will be able to work with your files without a warning from NOD32. What is the problem then ?? You already have all needed I think ... or maybe I missed something

 

SO what?

Even the best detection will be quite useless, if there is no possibility to take appropriate action.
Is it serious to asssume that I will have to wait 2 days until the file is analyzed, even if I already know the answer? And if I just want to copy the CD!

 

If you are for example copying a CD, it is not so clear what to exclude. In some cases, temporary folder is every time named differently. Not serious to exclude all temp folder, that is where viruses are expected.

 

woow i never seen so much people hate all other antivirus
users of nod32 is bashing avast, antivir, f-secure, dr.web, vba32, panda, bitdefender, kaspersky, and all others antiviruses that they have much more false positive then NOD32, well my personally opinion on this is not true.
Marcos and Pain of Salvation does they work for nod, because they bashing all other Anti-Viruses?
~snip....removed totally uncalled for remark....Bubba~

 

You can just copy the file(s) to one folder and then create a new data CD instead of doing a CD-to-CD copy as a workaround...It may take 2-3 more minutes but thats not much is it? And in a few days Eset will remove the flase positive if there is any. So I dont really see a problem here.

One more thing, Marcos was not bashing all other AVs, he was just saying that other AVs have some false positives too. He said this:

He might probably have meant to say dozens of samples from other AVs collectively. (ie. one FP for this AV, one FP for that AV etc.)

He did not deny that NOD32 does not have false positives.

All AVs sometimes have false positives, some may have less and some may have more. NOD32 also sometimes has FPs, and so do others - there is no effective measure of how many FPs an AV creates - Maybe any given AV will not give any FPs for one guy, yet the other may have hundreds of FPs.

So basically, I might just say that all AVs (including NOD32) are alike in the regard that they may sometimes have FPs.

I myself use McAfee alongside NOD32, so I'm not a "basher", and never will be.

 

Take a look at the title in your other thread, and you'll spot the bash quite easily.
And now I'm off to bed, this bores me

 

Not to continue the flaming but I have to agree with Brian, The only bashing I see started witht he original poster. It seems to me that Marcos did not bash any other AV nor did state that NOD doesn't have any FPs, he did not in any fashion state that one AV had any more or less FPs than any other. You also acuse Eset of having "Headstrong support personnel" because they want all of the FPs submitted, and yet you complain there is no way to stop them. Could I suggest one way to fix them would be to submit them, then Eset can figure out what exactly is being picked up and why, they can then fix the detection or perhaps give it a name and add a definition if that should be the case. That to me seems to be the best solution. Why are you so against submitting your heuristic detections? Not to start another flaming war, but are you writing malware and trying to figure out to get it by NOD's heuristics? That is the only reasonable justification that I can think to justify your position on this.

 

Gentlemen I see no redeeming value in this thread but I will leave it open if the personal assualts and accusations and product bashing stops now. If not I will have no recourse but to close it

bigc

 

Good writeup, flyerfan. I was starting to think this way as well

 

If there is something illogical in the program, it can be corrected but nobody cares (some, because they do not get the point, some, because they like the program too much, some, because they hate it), then really, it doesn't make much difference if thread is opened or not.

Have seen this already - with "off" switch - this program is simply not opened for discussion.

 

Well, if your code is top secret, restricted by some confidentiality agreement, etc., then certainly you cannot be expected to send it.

So that Eset can figure out why it is being detected as a false positive, and prevent this from happening again.

I agree. That is why AMON and IMON have the "exclusions" feature. Unfortuntately, there is no way to do this for the on-demand scanner with the current software, though. Maybe in version 3.0?

Is this the point, or am I missing it?

 

Yes it's open for discussion, but here's the problem: you allready made up your mind and push to one thing: that what YOU want to be changed. That rules out any and all discussion. So don't be surprised when people go against your opinions

 

You people are funny.
Why should I submit something, what is mine?
Maybe Eset would better submit some of their source code to me that I can analyze it?
No?
So why should I?

 

This poster is only seeking an argument and not a resolution. Further replys are a waste of time as the only purpose is to goad.