4 ms·
Simply banning the language because the language is efficient and elegant to be used for malware is ridiculous.
by cbdwqio 4y ago
Simply banning the language because the language is efficient and elegant to be used for malware is ridiculous.
- brookst 4y agoAssuming technical mistakes reflect intentional policy is kind of conspiratorial. Far more likely that some ML algorithm trained on malware found the same patterns in legit software, all without any particular knowledge of source language.
- squarefoot 4y agoThat would be extremely stupid and shortsighted from them, to the point it makes one wonder it could be intentional. In the late 90s and early 2Ks a lot of cracking software, keygens etc. were made in Delphi, which i also used for years at different companies, and I don't recall a single antivirus complaining about executables compiled by me or any other colleague.
- KMag 4y agoI suspect it's just an over-fitting problem. By some (likely ML-derived) metrics, Go and Nim binaries don't look like MSVC binaries. My general feeling is that we're going to see many years of ML over-fitting for common cases, getting power users banned from various services, various oddball binaries flagged as malicious, etc.
- account42 4y agoLike most ills today, it's a not-caring-about-externalities problem. If there were real repercussions for rampant false positives, these would be fixed yesterday.
- KMag 4y agoThe thing is, these probably aren't rampant. I doubt more than 0.01% of all Windows machines have a Go or Nim binary on them.
- account42 4y agoFalse positives doen't just affect Go or Nim binaries, they affect anything that doesn't look exacty like the bloated shit MSVC spits out. It would affect a lot more real programs if their creators hadn't wasted time (and sometimes made their programs worse) to work around bs black box detections.