Are you sure it was detected as a Trojan and not possibly unwanted program? It seems to be part of privdog, it’s probably the driver that enables https support.
Because of the way that PrivDog enables HTTPS filtering I would agree with the PUP/riskware rating, but not Trojan.
Ah, well I wouldn’t say it’s a trojan, unless they know something I don’t.
It may be safe to use or it may not be safe to use, however due to the way PrivDog supports HTTPS filtering (messing with the certificates) I would personally say it’s not worth it, there are other applications that does filtering as extensions in a less intrusive way.
Iunno, figured bigger in general in contrast to software rated as safr, simply because it messes with the certificates, if a program can exploit PrivDog then it could potentially read HTTPS sites in clear text without replacing the certs itself and then we suddenly have two points of failure, the browser and PrivDog.
Now I can’t prove that and don’t actually know that if that can happen but I’d rather not find out by experience.
Off-topic I’d argue it’s worth it to uninstall PrivDog if only to see the original certificates in the browser, but that’s a subjective thing I guess.
Privdog is not a malware but an ad blocker which may also show selected ads. It is not a trojan or otherwise malicious.
Most of the detections are now for Adware, Grayware GrayWare[NetTool:not-a-virus], potentially unwanted program (yontoo.c), heurtistic detection, Artemis, that could be a false positive. Making it something people may not appreciate but not malware.
Knowing Privdog is not a malware I am confident to say that the two detections that classify it under generic trojan signatures are false positives. Let’s wait for people to report that to the av makers.