ToveriJuri: People should start replacing AVs with common sense with all these false positives. Bitdefender was supposed to be one of the better ones too.
The problem with common sense is that it only applies to common problems. Ergo: only to stuff that is outrageously clear to be or not to be a malicious code.
For all other cases you have to be extremely knowledgable on the matter on technical level and even then you can have doubts.
And the thing is, it's rare but STILL A THING, that some developers include code that is dangerously close to classifying as a virus.
And people should not automatically yell "false positive"
just because it's a paid product that is
SUPPOSED TO BE virus free.
Because technically there were plenty of cases in this industry were "legal viruses" were used.
Think SecuROM - it's basically legalized rootkit considering what it does how on technical level. It's detected as so by MANY av software products.
So before someone starts yelling "false positive" it's better to first wonder WHY it was detected in the first place.
Sure, it can be false positive. There is no such thing as 100% false positive free av product.
But at the same time it's easy to just blindly trust the developer just because you paid for the product.
There MAY be something in this specific detected piece of code that matches malicious software patterns. So it MAY do something similar to "normal" malicious code.
Maybe it accesses certain files automatically (for example making system info sweep upon game crash) in a way that is normally considered not normal or too intrusive or too broad thus classifying as a virus-like behaviour.
Who knows.
Ergo: this may very well be legitimate wrong code. Actual technical analysis is required to actually say.
