FP

Comodo Internet Security - CIS AV False Positive/Negative Detection Reporting
#1

Not Malicious !

Gibson Research Corporation Firewall Leak Test from this Site >>> [b]https://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm[/b]

#2

Hi pio,

Thank you for reporting this.
We’ll check it and get back to you soon.

Best regards
Aravindhraj J

#3

Hi pio,

This is to inform you that the file you have submitted has been checked and it is not a false-positive.
leaktest.exe SHA1:ef41db76b1f0252bf3b10ede0f7bed58f072884f

Best regards
Aravindhraj J

#4

Hi Aravindhrai J ,

please can anybody tell me where the malicious behaviour is ? I cant find any … !!! It has some PE Anomalies but for me it shows no behavior that would be against his nature. It’s a leak test program, it has to do some malicious things . Anyway the File comes also from a Signed Security Site !!! So please can tell me anybody where the Problem is ? :wink:

Thank you !!!

#5

CAV Detection at vt has been removed. I rate this as fixed ! :wink: :-TU

Thx !!!

#6

The Comodo VT Verdcit is back ! ??? And nobody can me explain for what reason ! :-\ I’am bit disaponted !!! The File is on VT since 12 Years and have only a relativly small group of false positiv detections . If it were really harmful, it would probably be much more . As a further incidental indication … !!!

So I’ve checked the File intensivly and i can’t find any malicious or risky behaviour !!! I would really like to understand how your Verdict came about and what indicators it is based on .

Generally , I think it’s better to work together than against each other !!! 88)

Kaspersky Application Advisor Verdict : Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal

#7

Hi pio,

Please check this.

Regards,
Ionel

#8

Hi Ionel ,

thank you for the Link and sorry for my late reply, but I was visiting my mother and couldn’t go online there and on my mobile phone , i don´t want internet , if it can be avoided. . :wink:

I can confirm that the file was used as part of malware a long time ago . From this perspective , you could classify it that way , but I can still not confirm that the named file itself has a harmful behavior . So regarding the criteria described in the link , I can understand your classification in a better way now .

In some cases it is and remains simply a definitional matter .

Thanks again and Best Regards !!!
pio