3 ms·
> If you check the github thread then the very first post says it was flagged as PUA but the actual error they show is clearly a malware classification. Are yo
by e2le 4y ago
> If you check the github thread then the very first post says it was flagged as PUA but the actual error they show is clearly a malware classification.
Are you sure that's what you're seeing? The image in the first post of that GitHub thread shows that Defender did indeed flag the qBittorrent installer as PUA.
- mike_hearn 4y agoI think it looks like that because each program gets a single name to identify it in the Defender namespace, and that namespace seems to include a sort of general categorization. But then a program can be classified in multiple ways and blocked for multiple reasons. The people on that thread don't seem to be on corporate networks, so it seems like Defender is marking it as a "threat" for other reasons. The whole thing is annoyingly confusing and opaque, but, I don't think the issue here is some sort of conspiracy against BitTorrent. Unsigned software is gonna trigger AV false positives, it's been that way for decades. Now they're getting AV false positives. If they started signing their code then eventually Windows would learn it's not malware. Corp networks might still opt to block it because they don't want their employees torrenting, but that's a separate issue.