On Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 08:27:33 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 08:31:05 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> On 25/07/2018 8:27 PM, Rel wrote:
>>> I think, we should do something about it, at very least report
>>> for false-positive to Kaspersky or something.
>>
>> This is a pretty regular problem for Windows.
>> Until we start signing the executables, it will never end.
>
> Does anti-virus software exempt signed executables?

I really think that it's problem of Kaspersky than D. They should fix they crap, not we.

On 26/07/2018 8:39 PM, Suliman wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 08:27:33 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 08:31:05 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2018 8:27 PM, Rel wrote:
>>>> I think, we should do something about it, at very least report
>>>> for false-positive to Kaspersky or something.
>>>
>>> This is a pretty regular problem for Windows.
>>> Until we start signing the executables, it will never end.
>>
>> Does anti-virus software exempt signed executables?
> 
> I really think that it's problem of Kaspersky than D. They should fix they crap, not we.

Yes, but it'll be a lot easier to convince them that we are ok, if they can check for a cert.

On 26/07/2018 8:27 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 08:31:05 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> On 25/07/2018 8:27 PM, Rel wrote:
>>> I think, we should do something about it, at very least report
>>> for false-positive to Kaspersky or something.
>>
>> This is a pretty regular problem for Windows.
>> Until we start signing the executables, it will never end.
> 
> Does anti-virus software exempt signed executables?

It really depends upon the AV engine as to what extent it is beneficial.

But they can do white listing[0] and a few other things which would be very good on our end.

[0] https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=202088.0