Try and compile it as multithreaded lib, upload to virustotal and show the result. The AntiVir warning disappear.
Not surpised at all, as likely the initialization or runtime library code that they use to detect the alleged malware is not used in that case. Once again rather a strong hint that their detection method simply stinks...
By the way, the worse (for me) is not to get a virus warning. The worse is linking is blocked.
If you are running a tool that gives you these kinds of problems, simply ditch it, it is just not worth dealing with it.
Either they react on a properly described false positive or move on to something more sane. As I mentioned, AVast (which I currently consider the most secure and sane of all current AV products) can come up with a warning about sandboxing a newly created application, which I take rather as a sign that it is doing it's job and pays attention in an otherwise rather unintrusive way and I can decide if I want to do this or even disable that warning all together...
Yes it is simple and that's a good thing point out the problem. I don't agree with you that AntiVir is "obscure".
Maybe less obscure than Ikarus (which I looked up by now, they are from Vienna, Austria) or Jiangmin (some Chinese outfit that has problems presenting them on their international site even in proper English).
It may not common where you live but in germany it's a very known AntiVirus SW and I havn't found that there is another better one out there.
Yes, AntiVir is less common here in the USA (ich bin Deutscher!) but I run into it a couple of times a year in my work as an IT consultant. And so far, not in a positive way.
AVast or AVG, which I prefer out of experience at my line of work, aren't US software either but do a much better job as all those little garage outfits that have crept up in the last few years. Or those bloated behemoths like Symantec/Norton or McAfee...
Here we have a special rare problem. Because the exe file that one can compile when debugging console app code changes every time on compilation and so there is currently no chance to adapt the VDF scanner files which is normally done in just 24 hours.
But the fact that you have to keep doing this is a sure sign that they are just going about detecting the alleged malware the wrong way. It's not the whole program that triggers the alert, it's just a piece (or several pieces) of code that they identify as the 'code signature' of the alleged malware. Or that's what it is supposed to do...
Ralf
