Are you aware that VirusTotal gives a bad report on this software?

[h-h-h-h]

VirusTotal scan of AntiDupl.NET-2.3.10.exe

Such reports seem to risky for me.

[WebBuddha]

Sophos detected also an PUA...so, nothing for me.

[ermig1979]

Antiviruses don't like self-extracting archives. Perhaps their heuristics algorithms are wrong. If you don't trust the file you can create build of the program yourself - the sources are available.

[bawldiggle]

@ h-h-h-h They are all False-Positives. The AVs who flagged "AntiDupl: as a risk use heuristics to GUESS at the risk level. In my opinion they are all fringe AVs, if you go to their respective web sites they dont even have a contact to report false-positives. Years ago I gave up reporting false-positives, as it just fell on deaf ears. Heuristics are limited by the skills of AVs developers, and at the moment AVs are breeding like rabbits. Some AVs assume if it isn't signed ... it must be unsafe ... which is, IMO, too simplistic. Many v.trusted IT-tech developers do not have their apps "signed" eg, Nirsoft ... and ... System Internals (by "Mark Russinovich") are not signed ... and are owned by Micrsoft,

Over time the same lazy AVs are the core of 95% False/Positives.

One FREE check I would recommend is https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/ ... very trusted,. and while you are there, read up on http: and https: Using a "Sand Box" is also one safe way to assess apps you download. https://www.sandboxie.com/DownloadSandboxie

[Edi61]

New release is build directly by github workflow and is uploaded directly to the release by github action. SFX is now created by 7zip.exe. Automated check on Virustotal is now also done. Since files on new releaes 2.3.11 has no or less than 5 errors i am closing issue.