Seems strange that the dev seems to be keeping quiet on this, no? I’m not telling you to read every comment of every post, you can just skim the post titles. Then you’ll see multiple open issues and a few closed issues too going back 5 days to the latest BtS update.
Though I haven’t followed this project long enough to tell if this is just the way they normally behave.
Edit:
I’m back at my computer, so it’s easier to edit and add info now.
Some key points that have stuck out to me:
-
Previous version released in July only triggers 2 detections on Windows defender versus 29 for the most recent version: https://i.imgur.com/GIoH7eG.png
-
Users getting constantly pestered to update to the latest version: https://i.imgur.com/Oege3kU.png
-
Yeah, naturally, the dev is going to say it’s a false positive. Obviously. I’ve only mentioned that the dev has previously responded because some people barely skimmed through the issues and thought the dev simply hadn’t seen the latest open issue from only a few hours ago, when that is not the case.
the issue was just posted 7 hours ago. maybe they just haven’t seen it yet.
someone in issue #573 asked if the dpapi file is really needed, and by looking at the manual installation instructions, yes, because that contains all the code.
the developer loads custom code into the spotify process by using such an “override” dll file. it works because spotify is voluntarily loading a dll with this name, and if there’s such a file in the directory besides the .exe file, it’ll take precedence over the original file installed in the system.
the trojan warning is probably triggered because this technique is often used by malware to change the behaviour of your programs, but as with most technologies, it has good uses too
There are multiple posts going back 5 days of people asking about it. Check closed issues too, the dev even responded to some of them by saying it’s only a false positive.
What else are you expecting them to do then if they already answered? Write an essay on DLL injection and walk everyone through the code line by line to convince them it’s not malicious?
In the end you either have to verify the code yourself or you have to trust them when they say it’s a false positive.
Not the whole code but only the part that triggers those flags. Not everyone is versed in C to “verify the code” himself… That’s a stupid take, It’s like saying to a toddler to change his diapers on his own when it’s dirty.
Strangely enough It went from 1 trigger to 29 triggers after 1 update? Seems rather sketchy :/ In the past (pirated games/software) I would have ignored those warnings and add an exception into my firewall… But nowadays with all the crypto schemes and obfuscated code, I won’t go near anything like that.
You don’t say. And the developer they don’t trust pointing to some piece of code and telling those people who cannot understand it themselves that it’s not malicious achieves anything?
If it’s a false positive there isn’t even anything to show in the first place. Nobody but the antivirus vendors know for sure why something triggers a false positive.
It’s like a toddler telling you you’re changing their diapers wrong and expecting you to explain to them what you did wrong even though you did everything correctly and the toddler doesn’t know anything about changing diapers in the first place.
I guess it’s all a question of point of view and reference point. 💁 I can’t argue against your opinion on the other side.
I do agree though that from this point of view it also make sense.
I said that to indicate that the dev had already responded to the posts, and they were not in a different time zone or on vacation, as you suggested in another comment.