... This means that the Heuristics detection finds it suspicious that the file has a "double extension"...
Leaving aside the fact that I'm not using Comodo's AV, I may say that none of the antivirus / antimalware solutions should flag anything based on any file names.
That is less than funny.
Yes, there could be worms in files like <look at this picture>.jpg.com
, we all know that...
But we have this “multi-extensions” feature and we have rights to use it.
Some programs are dynamically generating executables. The double/ triple extension could be a part of the process... (I am using that in some coding)
Would Comodo trigger the detection when on rename simple text file and call it “textFile.txt.exe”??? … in such situation probably even file type will not be analyzed???
Why not? Is that's what's going on? WoW!!!
Neither signature nor heuristics analysis should not look at the names
and make conclusions based on that.
The code is analyzed either based on fingerprints for the first plus “algorithmic guessing” is added to that for the latter.
The Behaviour Blockers are analyzing the code without signatures based on the code's actions and the potential outcome of such actions.
What file names have to do with any type of such analysis?
...I think you can safely conclude it's a False Alert. It's just the heuristics engine complaining about the double extension...
That should not be the case.
Neither False Positives nor Real detections should be made based on any names