Tempest drivers are positive about the bad reputation.

[defaultuser]

The x8 mouse driver is deleted directly by Norton, but not because of a declared threat, but because of bad reputation (WS.Reputation.1)
It is also true that Tempest does not identify the version or give access to previous versions, and the antivirus says that the file is very new.

Very new file without verification, source of little trust, or just policy?...

Salu2.

[cobito]

@defaultuser It may be because it is not signed. Any binary signed with a standard certificate and not to mention one with EV, should not give problems even if the certificate is recent.

For example, there is the test bank of this house, which gave countless problems even months after it was published. It was signed and it was a miracle.

Another thing is that they were caught doing the fool and either the source or the certificate they use are tainted.

[defaultuser]

@cobito said in Tempest drivers positive for bad reputation.:

Another thing is that they were caught doing the fool and either the source or the certificate they use are tainted.

There I was, I'm not used to brands releasing unsigned drivers, maybe because it's a "smaller" brand it could be.
But the thing is that software that comes out with a new version unsigned, Norton usually says there is potential risk because it is "unknown" and "still little used" but if the source has good precedents it allows you to decide.
This one however Norton already marks the portal as "doubtful" and also directly deletes the file during installation, despite having scanned it with a negative result.

In short, apart from the negative note for publishing unsigned drivers and without any info (nor version), it also seems rather that their reputation is below average.

Salu2.

PD:
It turns out I had a previous version saved, lucky me.

[ramondecal]

@defaultuser said in Tempest drivers positive for bad reputation.:

@cobito said in Tempest drivers positive for bad reputation.:

Another thing is that they were caught doing the fool and either the source or the certificate they use are tainted.

There I was, I'm not used to brands releasing unsigned drivers, maybe it could be because it's a "smaller" brand.
But the case is that software that comes out with a new version unsigned, Norton usually says there is potential risk because it is "unknown" and "still little used" but if the source has good precedents it allows you to decide.
This one however, Norton already marks the portal as "doubtful" and also directly deletes the file during installation, despite having scanned it with a negative result.

In short, apart from the negative note for publishing unsigned drivers without any info (nor version), it also seems rather that their reputation is below average.

Salu2.

PD:
It turns out I had a previous version saved, lucky me.

You're absolutely right Cobito... these are things I will never understand, although it's a matter of reputation.