RemoteUtilitiesLLC

My friend, ESET doesn't care even about EV Code Signing Certificate issued by DigiCert. Do you think they should care about self-signed files? You probably need to have your files signed by the president of Slovakia. I think that should do the trick. (joking)

The problem are not false positives per se, every antivirus software generates them more or less. The problem is how ESET responds to software vendors. It has been three years that we are trying ESET to remove false detections off our digitally signed files. Their argumentation is that our software "is being installed by malware" . Well, isn't it the job of antivirus software to block malware and not to block legitimate files? Legitimate software is legitimate software, and malware is malware. Even if malware uses some wrapper or loader or dropper to run legitimate files, why don't you block that wrapper/loader/dropper in the first place? For someone who still don't understand this explanation here is an analogy. Colt's firearms can be used by the police and army, but they can also be used by criminals. If we follow Eset's reasoning we must ban all Colt's firearms (including those used by policy and army) just because some criminals use them.

Hello, So it's been 7 days and you refuse to make this message public and resolve the issue. Ok then, we'll make it public for you.

Hello, This detection has a long history and for all these years we weren't able to get a single reply from Eset regarding this matter. Remote Utilities is legitimate software produced by Remote Utilities LLC. Currently, the executable files (rutserv.exe and rfusclient.exe) of our Host module - the one that is installed on remote computers - are being detected as "a variant of Win32/RemoteAdmin.RemoteUtilities.D potentially unsafe" . This is despite the following: - Both files are signed with a valid EV (Extended Validation) Code Signing certificate issued by DigiCert to Remote Utilities LLC. - Our company identity and legal registration can be easily verified. - The product has been on the market for 8 years already, constantly improving and updating. You perfectly know that this is legitimate software and a company. - Now the most interesting part - neither of our direct competitors are classified as potentially unsafe. You will NOT find detections such as "a variant of Win32/RemoteAdmin.TeamViewer.D potentially unsafe" or "a variant of Win32/RemoteAdmin.RealVNC.D potentially unsafe" or "a variant of Win32/RemoteAdmin.LogMeIn.D potentially unsafe". Of almost all remote access software it's only Remote Utilities that Eset thinks is unsafe. This is what we have tried: - Sending emails to samples@eset.com and vendorcomplaints@eset.com . Not a single reply. - Publicly discussing the matter with Eset representative on Spiceworks community. No avail. - Sending whitelisting requests using instructions on this page https://support.eset.com/kb3345/?locale=en_US&viewlocale=en_US - Calling Eset's regional offices asking them to contact the headquarters with this problem. They did their best but yet again there was silence. We still hope that this issue can be resolved by Eset. The biggest question is why this "unsafe" classification is being applied to Remote Utilities and not to all similar software. Isn't it unfair competition and misleading our (and your) American, German etc. customers? P.S. There is a good chance that this message won't be allowed by forum moderators. So we'll take a screenshot and publish it on Twitter in case we are not allowed to voice our opinion on Eset's own forum.