Pete Batard

Hmm, that's a weird one indeed. The first thing I am noticing is that you are using Windows 10 Enterprise S, which I suspect has a different default security behaviour...

> is there anything that I can do to work around this problem other than modify the source code and compile the program myself? I'm afraid not. And I'd be...

* https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/6d362897059df29d9674112a43e68dbc549ba4c25e7036dd9fae7c92bfafda02/detection * https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/wiki/FAQ#Antivirus_X_reports_that_Rufus_contains_malware * https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/wiki/Security#Tamperproof_signed_executable

And where in the code are you alleging we are doing that? It should be __exceedingly__ obvious to point to Rufus doing anything like this considering that, through the way...

> also changes system certificate settings Which could also be triggered by the OS performing such thing as changing one local group policies, validating that the digital signature is valid,...

> but that doesn't mean I can blindly trust the developers if a tool shows exact registry keys rufus disables. Yet you trust an automated tool that makes an extraordinary...

> and there is no way we can tell those apart. There is. The idea that _"Well, there is no way to tell those apart, __because I don't want to...

> Try to execute rufus also on https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/ and compare results. Also please learn how to interpret results, because it's easy to __wrongly assume__ that Rufus is doing something dodgy,...

> I said it's more likely to contain malware which invalidates your arguments And I say you're more likely to be a complete idiot, according to the "evidence" you've provided...

> What evidence do I have of Rufus being safe? Developers saying so No, it's developer trying to demonstrate to you how difficult it would actually be to conceal the...