My antivirus scan shows a file literally named "not-a-virus:HEUR:RiskTool.Win32Agent.gen" from Pianoteq 6 when I scan.

Is this a false positive? Did the developer name it that on purpose because it gets flagged by antivirus software? Or is this harmful?

Also id3 tag got 2 harmful flags as well which I thought was odd. Probably a false positive?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2021

Which antivirus?

 

ZoneAlarm, I was told that it might give false positives but i thought I'd ask because the file literally says it's not a virus so Idk if it's playing reverse psychology with me or what?

 

Again with this virus crap? @Olymoon @No Avenger @ArticStorm need to start deleting all these this useless threads. The release was done by @dima21664 who is a trusted source. Moreover, it has been almost a year since the first of these Pianoteq releases by Dimas became available, and if I recall correctly there were like 5 complains that were found to be baseless. Members need to start doing their homework by checking comments on AudioZ before creating this "panic" threads, and also use common sense. On a new release, it is understandable to have some doubts if your AV is sounding the alarm but on an older, and super popular release like this one, this threads are unnecessary.

 

I'm not trying to make any panic threads, just simply asking a question. I even mentioned that I was told it would find false positives when I scan I just wanted to make sure.

I'm fairly new to the forum so I had no idea & I may not have gotten pianoteq from here is the thing. I just don't remember. I'm not panicking or jumping to any conclusions, just asking. Had I known someone already posted a thread about it I wouldn't have asked.

 

Thanks man, that's all I wanted to know. It just as evenly seemed like it was named that on purpose but the reverse psychology of the name irked me.

All good, just won't quarantee it & give it a pass. Promise I wasn't trying to be insulting to the uploader or panicking about it. Just asking calmly if it was just a false positive as it seemed to me anways & I expected to find false positives.

 

Yes it's a "false positive".
Everyone who says it sounds good is wrong

 

I tried to look how to delete the thread but it seems I can't. Didn't mean to irk any members, promise that wasn't the intention.

lol the name of the file or pianoteq?

Because it's great for composing & sounds better with processing. But it's great I really should just move it up my buy list because of how light on cpu it is.

 

@Donut Nyamer No I was just mocking the age old argument of library freaks who argue whether a modelled piano can ever sound as convincing as a sampled one. Pianoteq is definitely cool - I was one of the people who "WTF" the loudest when I saw that epic release - but to my ears, a sampled piano still sounds more realistic. But much respect to the cracker for his work, I can remember reading how other crackers on here temporarily gave up on it, so it was fantastic to see it released.

 

It's a bit like an allergy for @The Pirate because he's already read about a million (at least it feels like) of those "false positive" reports.

Ask him as a test: "why doesn't my Omnisphere run as it should" and you'll get a quite similar result.

 

pianoteq sounds bad

 

Thanks, just did that. Didn't know I get to mark that, I thought mods did that.

 

Yes but it's great for composing your midi notes that you change up later but you can definitely get it to sound nice with the right processing effects.

 

To be honest, I probably am in most circumstances going to change out pianoteq to something else once I got the low cpu composition out of the way & onto decorating my record. Some genres won't mind pianoteq in there as is or with some nice processing.

 

@Donut Nyamer yeah I've heard from some people that some Pianoteq models cut through mixes very nicely. It can work really well for certain genres. I think some other modelled pianos do that too. I've heard one of the people here say that the 4Fonts piano is good that as well, even though it might sound weak in solo.

 

This happened on cgpersia, and the positives are important to report as many torrents got deleted and have warnings on them. The forum also sends a message to the person alerting them that they grabbed an infected torrent which is good so they can delete it. It sucks sifting through false positives ( some of these cracking methods will be seen as virus like) but reporting them should get an answer, simple and to the point.

Mostly there looking out for the network licencing issues posts and call home application bypasses..
Like the recent Workstation service required now for 1 single application's licence who thinks sneaking though this service is cool.

 

Maybe he did not get his answer.

If you don't even know where you got it from then what @r4e told you may not even apply and you could indeed have a real positive. The only way for you to make sure of that is to go over to sister site, download the release, run a SHA256 checksum and compare it to the one you have. They should be the same. If you don't know where you got it from, NOBODY can vouch for its integrity.

Usually, here we get reports from sister site. There is no reason to inundate this forum with problems originating in other sites. Rule of thumb is to download from a trusted source. Anyone who downloads from any other site is doing it at his or her own risk, and should take whatever issue up to that site's administration. AudioSex does not exist to provide customer support for other sites. What you proposed is not going to fly with the administration here. Moreover,if the release is from another site what is the OP going to do in order to obtain a reliable answer? Upload the potentially infected file so members can check it out?

 

Last edited: Jan 25, 2021

I think he maybe coming from other places that do that, as it is seen often in those places. So often that they now went so far with the warnings.