Virus Detected

fmarino22

AVG reports the latest version of software as a virus. This is version 1.9.0.552 and reported after installation with latest version of AVG anti virus pro. The file is jv 16PT.exe and the virus is being reported as Win32/Etap

redseujac

Obviously that's a wrong/false result of AVG :?

Kaspersky Internet Security can live with that program version: no (false) alerts :

Maybe you could contact AVG and report this false alert...

fmarino22

I have sent the file to AVG for analysis reporting the false positive

rdtmk5

Assuming you're using AVG 8.5, under Tools, Advanced Settings, Resident Shield, Exceptions, add the path to your PT2009 installation and you'll be good to go. The same thing happened to me - with Release 1.9.0.552, AVG was suddenly calling the program a virus.

fmarino22

I sent the file to AVG for deep analysis they responded that the detection was correct, it is a virus

jeremy

This does not appear to be a false +ve. I went from 550 to 552 about 2 hours ago and I have been trying to recover my computer since then. 552 did not install cleanly - first try was over-the-top of 550 (the normal method), computer stopped responding and I could just barely restart. Uninstalled jv16. It did not uninstall cleanly (first time in many years of using it that that has happened). Then was advised of Win32/Etap in the main jv16 folder (in My Progs). Ran HouseCall, SDFix, Mbam (malwarebytes) to try to clean. Then manually uninstalled residual components of 552. Reinstalled. Same issue - the desktop shortcut had the generic icon and didn't respond when clicked - gave error message (deleted now, can't remember the detail of the message). I have now put 550 back on after 2 hours of complete frustration trying to recover my computer, which I think I've done.

jv16

This is a false positive, the scan report of the setup file can be viewed here:

http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/096e348c767e7d98bea20ecd820547b5

And the report of the jv16pt.exe can be viewed here:

http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/127f9c67f708ca933df35bca78bfd4c9

AVG indeed reports a "Win32/Etap" infection, but this is clearly a false positive.

jeremy

OK thanks. Can you give me an estimate as to when the next version after 552 is due? Having spent the morning on this, ending in me having to go back to 550, there's no way I want to try again with 552. There's obviously some serious disagreement between my computer (a pretty standard XP SP3 32-bit system) and 552. This is the first time, after several years of use going back to RegSupreme and jv16PT2005 etc, that I have had such an issue. Thanks.

fmarino22

I went back to 550 as well. It seems that if 10 % of the scanners used by virustotal report jv16PT.exe as something other than normal then something is wrong with the file. It may very well be a false positive but something in the code is causing this in more than 1 anti virus product and it should be checked as to the cause and not simply dismissed out of hand as a false positive.

jv16

Jeremy wrote
OK thanks. Can you give me an estimate as to when the next version after 552 is due? Having spent the morning on this, ending in me having to go back to 550, there's no way I want to try again with 552. There's obviously some serious disagreement between my computer (a pretty standard XP SP3 32-bit system) and 552. This is the first time, after several years of use going back to RegSupreme and jv16PT2005 etc, that I have had such an issue. Thanks.

The next version will be released later in this month.

jv16

fmarino22 wrote
I went back to 550 as well. It seems that if 10 % of the scanners used by virustotal report jv16PT.exe as something other than normal then something is wrong with the file. It may very well be a false positive but something in the code is causing this in more than 1 anti virus product and it should be checked as to the cause and not simply dismissed out of hand as a false positive.

Some anti-virus products have always considered jv16pt.exe to be "suspicious" file because of the 3rd party executable protection product it uses against crackers. Sadly the same product is being used by many virus and malware authors as well and this has caused some anti-virus vendors to tag everything that uses the same protection as "suspicious".

Which is, of course, wrong and only means they are not doing their job properly.

jeremy

Understand.

Will the version after 552, due later in the month as you mention elsewhere, coexist with AVG? If not, can you suggest a workaround, short of uninstalling AVG?

As opposed to what (I think) some others have written here, I don't actually get to install 552 at all before AVG does its thing.

If I could get through the install before AVG cuts in , I could presumably tell AVG to stay calm and ignore the perceived threat ..... but the install fails so I can't launch the product.

From what you've written, my concern is that 550 might be the last version that will coexist with AVG. Am I wrong about that?

Thanks.

jv16

Jeremy wrote

From what you've written, my concern is that 550 might be the last version that will coexist with AVG. Am I wrong about that?

The problem most likely with AVG is that the 3rd party executable protection program just got updated prior the 552 release, after the guys and galls of AVG have had enough time to study it they should be able to fix the problem, i.e. not to report it as a virus.

redseujac

Yes, it's up to the AVG team to do the job and you (Jeremy) have to push them to do it asap :

jeremy

Now there's something you don't see every day! Someone telling me that I, as the customer of two well-respected and widely used applications that no longer like each other, am responsible for fixing the issue! Or at least having it fixed by persuading one of the orgs to do something about it.

Hey, I'm just the customer!

I thought it was maybe enough that I (and other customers of Macecraft) pointed out the fact that there was a bit of a problem with the latest release of jv16PT coexisting with AVG. What I hadn't realised was that it was our problem! :

There must be a lot of jv16PT users out there who also use AVG 8.5 and who now have an issue, i.e. they can no longer install/launch revised versions of jv16PT.

If someone in Macecraft is waiting for me to persuade AVG to fix it, you'll be waiting a while!

redseujac

Well, I think it's an AVG problem/issue. So it's not abnormal the AVG users contact AVG to report the problem and asking them to fix it. That's logical isn't it?Macecraft cannot fix it because it's an AVG bug, so as long as AVG doesn't do anything you won't be able to install/use jv16 PowerTools properly.

When there's a bug in the PowerTools and the users notice that, they're reporting also the bug asking Macecraft to fix it. It's that simple and not extraordinary. Besides in the past we saw some similar problems with antivirus software and there also the antivirus developer was asked to fix the issue which he finally did.

But I do agree, our developer himself could also contact AVG to explain the problem, maybe with more authority than a simple user :

jeremy

Yes sorry I was just being a bit cheeky there. I agree with what you say - but especially the last para - the developer should certainly have more chance of fixing this and doing so quickly than just a user of both jv16PT and AVG.

I think this is probably borne out by an earlier post in this thread - someone has already sent the file to AVG for their analysis and they responded to him that it was indeed a virus, not a false +ve.

So that wasn't very helpful and I figured if I did the same thing, I'd probably get the same response from AVG.

But if the developer communicated with them I doubt if that would happen - I would expect it to get fixed and probably quite quickly, but maybe that's just wishful thinking? :

jv16

Jeremy wrote
Yes sorry I was just being a bit cheeky there. I agree with what you say - but especially the last para - the developer should certainly have more chance of fixing this and doing so quickly than just a user of both jv16PT and AVG.

It's their product that displays a false virus warning, what could I do? All we can do is report the problem to them, that's all.

jeremy

OK but the question I still have is this. 550 coexisted fine with AVG, no problems. Attempting to upgrade jv16PT version from 550 to 552 triggered the AVG intervention.

You noted previously that:

"The problem most likely with AVG is that the 3rd party executable protection program just got updated prior the 552 release, after the guys and galls of AVG have had enough time to study it they should be able to fix the problem, i.e. not to report it as a virus."

Now, if this was the cause of the problem, would we not have the same issue with 550? But you will see on this thread and others that all who have had the failure with 552 have reverted to 550 successfully, with no AVG intervention on that older version.

So, the bottom line seems to be that AVG 8.5 has no issue with 550, but it does with 552. This seems to indicate that the issue was not AVG updating their 3rd party executable protection program, but that something changed between 550 and 552 which triggered their intervention, regardless of any updates they may or may not have made to their system.

Or am I reading this wrong?

rdtmk5

The arguments against Macecraft are illogical. Macecraft made a change to PT2009 between Versions 550 and 552, presumably to the piracy protection scheme. This change causes AVG to flag the program as a virus. The current version, however, DOES NOT contain any viruses or malware - I'm using AVG 8.5 and was able to install and run Version 552 by adding it to the Exceptions list in AVG. PT2009 works as advertised. There is no way for Jouni to 'coordinate' with AVG (or any other security software manufacturer) to ensure that every one of his releases plays nicely with those applications. The problem is ENTIRELY with AVG, which will presumably fix the problem if enough folks make them aware. I simply don't understand how this is Macecraft's problem.