Zugg Software :: View topic

Beginner Joined: 04 Jan 2009 Posts: 20

hey.

my virus scan just altered me that the cMUD.exe contains a trojan horse TR/Agent.8638464.A

anyone has an idea what is going on? can't find anything on the internet about that trojan horse.. is my cMUD .exe just not working right?

Beginner Joined: 04 Jan 2009 Posts: 20

yea.. nevermind.. avira antivirus reports a trojan horse. symantec online scan and kaspersky online scan don't. neither does the avira database provide any information about the trojan horse.

problem solves itself, topic can be deleted.

thanks

Wanderer Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Posts: 66

Got the same issue here...... can't start Cmud with the Avira virus scanner running... even when i keep clicking "ignore" it wont start. I'll turn of the Avira while playing... and lets hope it will get fixed in a next update from Avira.

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:59 am

Make sure you've downloaded CMUD only here (pro, beta). If you're still getting a trojan warning, it's likely a false positive - if Avira have a way to report false positives (and they'd be remiss if they didn't) then please do report this.

Wanderer Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Posts: 66

posted the (probably) false positive and I am waiting for their reply. When I get a reply I'll post it here.

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:28 pm

This tends to happen with anti-virus software that is less "careful" about their code. You really should be using a more widely used anti-virus software. If they can't write their software to properly deal with the popular Armadillo copy protection that CMUD uses, then what confidence do you have that their code will catch a *real* virus?

Anti-virus software isn't something to mess around with. For commercial stuff, I'd stick with McAfee or Symantec. For free personal use, I can highly recommend either AVG or Avast. Both have excellent history and track records. FSecure used to be good, but they went downhill so I don't recommend them any more.

But I've never even heard of Avira, so you are on your own with them. But if you wanted to give them more information, you can tell them that the software having trouble is protected using the Armadillo (or Digital River Software Passport) software. That might help them.

Newbie Joined: 29 Jan 2007 Posts: 8

Another thing to keep in mind is a lot of the newer virus scanners with "heuristics" will flag false positives quite often due to the methods used in wrapping .exe files. If there's an option to turn off the heuristics you'll find that you don't get any false positives, but at the sacrifice of not spotting possible "new" virii (though there's a lot of speculation as to if these even work because any virus creator is going to check their code for detection on a site like virustotal.com which will scan your code with every scanner currently offered.

Just for kicks, here's CMUD.exe through virustotal.com's scan:

https://www.virustotal.com/analisis/89feeb66b270502923339cc24d9b5ac9

Looks clean to me.

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:59 pm

Thanks for posting CMUD to virustotal.com and giving the link. I didn't even know about that site. Although I agree that a site like that sure makes it easier for the hackers.

Newbie Joined: 29 Jan 2007 Posts: 8

I've only known about it due to posts exactly like this about other small software vendors products, everyone always thinks the small companies want to slip in trojans to make money(???) or something.

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:42 pm

False positives are always a pain in the neck, too. I don't use AVG simply because of the problems they had with identifying Windows needed files as virii through false positives, and effectively shutting down your system. Only problem I had.

Currently, I use avast, though occasionally I'll use MalwareBytes as well. Both are very good at detecting virii and I usually don't get any false positives. The others Zugg mentioned (and that does include AVG regardless of the problems) are really good ones, too. I had forgotten about virustotal.com, though. Love the site. There really should be a collective virus database all companies access instead of their own, and individual companies could contribute to adding to that db by "trying" to infect their systems. Would make it better for everyone in the end. :/

Charneus

Wanderer Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Posts: 66

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your email to Avira's virus lab.
Tracking number: #########.

We received the following archive files:

File ID Filename Size (Byte) Result
25277823 cMUD.zip 7.75 MB OK
A listing of files contained inside archives alongside their results can be found below:

File ID Filename Size (Byte) Result
25277824 cMUD.exe 8.24 MB FALSE POSITIVE

Please find a detailed report concerning each individual sample below:

Filename Result
cMUD.exe FALSE POSITIVE
The file 'cMUD.exe' has been determined to be 'FALSE POSITIVE'.In particular this means that this file is not malicious but a false alarm.Detection will be removed from our virus definition file (VDF) with one of the next updates.

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:20 am

Just one little thing to add if choosing between AVG and Avast..

I used AVG for quite a few years, until eventually growing a bit unhappy with it. Not that its performance as a scanner was bad, but it tended to interrupt my general computer use a lot. Sure, I could schedule its periodical scan to 3am, but somehow it always seemed to pop up telling me some message or another right at the worst times, stealing window focus or starting a scan (if it missed the scheduled scan it would seem to randomly try again right when I was in the middle of a game or something.)

I tried Avast at a friends recommendation, and like it a lot more. Personal preference, but if you are picking one of the two, try both. Avast seems to me to be much less noticeable.

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:25 pm

Avast does like to try to sell you stuff, though. Home licenses (the free version) seem to expire for some people after a certain period of time (either 60 or 90 days). I've never had this problem, but my mum and dad have both phoned me up demanding to know which button to press because their antivirus is about to stop working. The answer, if you're curious, is just to click the "more options" arrow, and there'll be an option to get another Home license.

Magician Joined: 17 Apr 2005 Posts: 496

Home license for Avast expire every year, which is more reasonable than a few months. PEBKAC.

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:04 pm

I used both for a long time on different computers. I found AVG to be slower in general, and I found the regular update process in Avast to be more reliable. With my laptop, it would often hang with AVG when coming out of standby mode when it was updating itself. And many times the updates failed until I downloaded and installed a new copy.

With Avast, yes, it expires each year, which I have no problem with. And it's actually not that different than AVG would will often come out with a new version that you have to download and will stop supporting regular updates in older versions.

I also like the animated logo in the task bar for Avast so when my computer seems to be slow, I can just look down and tell if it's the antivirus software running or not. It's also much easier to suspend Avast for a short period when needed (like performing some software update, etc) without needing to completely stop it and reboot.

But as always, your mileage may vary.