a variant of Win32/RemoteAdmin.RemoteUtilities.potentially unsafe

[UsorisSystem 0]

This is Josh,I represent Usoris Systems, LLC. The developers of "Remote Utilities' remote access software. 

 

I've sent multiple FalsePositives emails to Eset (weekly) dating back as long as April 29 and I have never, not even once received a reply from samples@eset.com. At first we thought we may have not followed the correct instructions in sending the samples but even after following word for word, we feel ESET has been deliberately ignoring our emails.

We have even reached out to local regional ESET offices and at least they have had the courtesy to reply but yet are unable to assist us in removing the riskware detection as they were only capable of forwarding our samples to again samples@eset.com. Even through them, ESET has not replied.

 

I'm not sure what it would take for ESET to remove this riskware detection as it is the only Anti-Virus software left still detecting our software as such.

 

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/b79718750df94dccc7fe03798456a72322119a49c2bbfc9fc17564d6d85f3748/analysis/1438226504/

 

Remote Utilities is a ligitimate software vendor and all our downloadable files and executable are signed with a valid DigiCert. It is even whitelisted by 4 other big A/V vendors.

Official website: hxxp://www.remoteutilities.com/

 

If ESET wont remove this detection, we would at least like to get a reply on the reason why so we can dispute it. Also, before I get a reply with the common template response of pup/riskware is normal for our softwares' category. Please note, our biggest competitor in this area which has the same basic function as ours, constantly bombards their users with banners and ads and they don't seem to have the ESET riskware detection but we do, so that argument is invalid. No double standards please.

[Marcos 5,074]

1, Potentially unsafe applications cover legitimate tools that can be misused in the wrong hands. That said, remote administration tools are covered too and administrators don't want to have such tools installed in their network without their knowledge.

2, Detection of potentially unsafe applications is OPTIONAL and is DISABLED by default. It's at users' discretion whether they want to have such tools detected or not.

3, Even if one decides to enable detection of potentially unsafe applications but uses a tool that is detected by ESET as a potentially unsafe application, he or she can exclude it from further detection.

 

Since this forum does not allow disputing detections and all has been explained above, we'll draw this topic to a close.

[UsorisSystem 0]

1, Potentially unsafe applications cover legitimate tools that can be misused in the wrong hands. That said, remote administration tools are covered too and administrators don't want to have such tools installed in their network without their knowledge.

2, Detection of potentially unsafe applications is OPTIONAL and is DISABLED by default. It's at users' discretion whether they want to have such tools detected or not.

3, Even if one decides to enable detection of potentially unsafe applications but uses a tool that is detected by ESET as a potentially unsafe application, he or she can exclude it from further detection.

 

 

 

I just checked TeamViewers VirusTotal detection, ESET doesnt seem to detect it as  a Potentially unsafe application

 

Double standards?

[UsorisSystem 0]

If this forum is not the proper place to dispute PUA detections, then may I ask where is? samples@eset.com? Never even had a reply, what more a discussion. lol

[XenoBen 1]

hxxp://www.eset.com/int/support/contact/

[Marcos 5,074]

Not double standards. Only legitimate applications that have been seen to be misused by malware for malicious purposes are detected as potentially unsafe applications. We are not aware of TeamViewer being misused by some kind of malware.

 

The topic is closed now.