Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Windows Defender false positive #22

Closed
Danfun64 opened this issue Feb 22, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Windows Defender false positive #22

Danfun64 opened this issue Feb 22, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@Danfun64
Copy link

As it turns out, Windows Defender thinks ntvdmx64.dll and ntvdmx64.exe are viruses. It doesn't like old-src.trunk.r687.20150728.7z or old-sdk.trunk_r57.20150728.7z either. I don't see the false positives for these being lifted ever, seeing that they're not 100% legal and such.

@Amaroq-Clearwater
Copy link

I'm unable to add an exclusion through the Windows Defender control panel.

@gadget00
Copy link

I have been able to add exceptions to it, so the DOS programs can run without problems. But because Windows Defender almost "works on its own", after a few days it will put the files again in quarantine, and I need to add the exception again. It wont keep that rule for too long, I dont know why.

Windows 10 Pro / 64bit

@leecher1337
Copy link
Owner

Windows Defender is a real pest, I disabled it on my machines, and they are very uncooperative on reported false positives.
I once wrote a very simple program that just reconnected mapped network drives upon start (as there are always problems with this starting with Windows 7) und nearly 50% of all AV-products flagged it as a virus.
I then tested for how long it takes until vendors that I notified fixed their fauly signatures.
From that, I made the following table of AV-vendors sorted by their response time:

Vendor | Days | Result | Comment
ESET | 0 | Fixed |  
F-Secure | 0 | Fixed |  
G Data | 0 | Fixed |  
AVG | 0 | Fixed |  
Avast | 1 | Fixed |  
Adaware | ? | Fixed | No direct response, but no longer detected after 2 days
Microsoft | 2 | Fixed |  
Kaspersky | 2 | Fixed |  
Vipre | 2 | Fixed |  

Given that table, Microsoft did fix their signatures, however I once submitted ldntvdm.dll as a false positive and didn't get a reply at all that they fixed it. But if enough users submit it for whitelisting, maybe they will fix it. The problem is that I often do new builds of the loader when I fix something and then it may drop off from whitelisting and gets flagged again, but I hope the loader is stable enough now so that we can request a whitelisting. Anyone of you wants to report the false positive to MS?

@leecher1337
Copy link
Owner

I scanned the recent loader.dlls and Windows defender doesn't flag them as bad, do you use the most recent loader and what false positives do you get?

@SalviaSage
Copy link

Hi.

I just wanted to say that I am also getting a false positive from Windows Defender.
I get something called "Trojan:Win32/Tiggre!plock upon scanning the files
and it is referencing this file: ldntvdm.dll

I also want to make a whitelist report if your reporting isn't enough.
What do I need to do?

@leecher1337
Copy link
Owner

Hi,

You can submit files for analysis here:
https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Submission/Submit.aspx

I didn't have success with this method when I first tried, at least no answer

There is also e-mail submission to avsubmit@submit.microsoft.com
Should be a password protected zip file. Maybe there is feedback when using the e-mail submission system.
Thank you.

leecher1337 added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2020
…tivirus and others (seems to be due to Shellcode being used for 32->64 transition) #10 #11 #22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants