One of our users recently informed us, that he saw our site had been flagged by a few security vendors as being malicious or infected with malware. Fact: we only use 100% original downloads and original download links we link to only, so we where a bit surprised.
But in the ever-paranoid world of cybersecurity, false positives are the equivalent of someone screaming “FIRE!” because they saw a candle. Unfortunately, when your website is the candle, things can get a little warm. That is exactly what happened to us at LetsVPNDownload.org, when five security vendors decided that our harmless, fully legitimate VPN download site was “Malicious” or infected with “Malware.”
Let’s try to analyze this tale of algorithmic overreach, sloppy heuristics, and the occasional questionable detection that landed us unfairly on VirusTotal’s naughty list. Ok, the other 92 security vendors there still show we are clean, of course.
We ran the experiment: how long does it take to convince each security vendor to clear a false positive? The clock is ticking…
The Five Offenders
According to the VirusTotal scan, these were the vendors that flagged our site:
- alphaMountain.ai — Malicious
- BitDefender — Malware
- CyRadar — Malicious
- G-Data — Malware
- Seclookup — Malicious
Now, let’s unpack what might have triggered these flags and why we believe these vendors need to up their game.
alphaMountain.ai: Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Paranoia?
alphaMountain.ai flagged us as “Malicious.”
We suspect their AI may have developed a bit of a persecution complex. Many AI-based threat detection systems rely heavily on pattern recognition, and when your site is offering VPN downloads – a category often abused by shady operators – the machine learning models may jump the gun.
But here is the problem: Context matters. Our site offers legitimate original VPN software that helps users protect their privacy and security online. Ironically, the very mission that drives VPN usage – privacy protection – may have contributed to these overcautious flags. alphaMountain.ai’s AI needs to take a few deep breaths and perhaps attend some continuing education seminars in nuance.
Update, June 5, 6pm: alphaMountain.ai wins the speed race! Just 2 hours after our report, they had our reputation restored. That is lightning fast- hats off! Well… sort of restored. We are now proudly labeled as “Not recommended” – which seems to be their way of saying: “We are as confused as you are, but hey, at least it’s not ‘malicious’ anymore.”
Update, June 7, 2pm: alphaMountain.ai has now officially declared us “clean” – we haveve been pardoned! Everything is clear on their radar for now. Plus, props to their email support – fast, friendly, and on point.
BitDefender: When Defense Turns Into Offense
BitDefender labeled us as “Malware.”
Now, BitDefender is a big name in the industry, known for its robust malware detection capabilities. But even giants stumble. One possible reason for this false positive could be their overzealous heuristic algorithms.
Heuristics are rules-of-thumb that attempt to predict whether something is harmful based on behavior, not definitive evidence. Perhaps BitDefender saw our executable VPN installer and automatically decided that “installers = malware”.
If BitDefender had dug just a bit deeper, they would have realized that all offered downloads are clean and vetted. No shady payloads, no hidden surprises. Just good, old-fashioned original VPN software downloads.
But the good thing is, the software universe offers many excellent alternative security products, doing a better job.
Update, June 5, 9pm: BitDefender grabs the silver medal – clocking in at just 5 hours! Pretty responsive, we have to say. Their Antimalware Team confirmed the URL is clean and removed the detection. Thanks for clearing things up!
CyRadar: Seeing Red When It’s Actually Green
CyRadar also called us “Malicious.”
This one stings because CyRadar markets itself as using “advanced analytics” and “multi-layered AI models”. We wonder which layer was responsible for this call.
VPN sites often attract a level of scrutiny simply because VPNs can be used for both perfectly legal privacy protection and less savory activities. This guilt-by-association mindset is a lazy shortcut. A site offering VPN services should be investigated on its own merits, not lumped into the broader category of “sites that allow anonymity”.
CyRadar, if you’re reading this: We’re the good guys.
Update June 5: We actually could not report the false positive through their website – turns out you need a Facebook account for that. Facebook? In 2025? Hard pass. So for now, we are still flagged as “malicious” with little hope of redemption.
Update, June 7: Without any way to contact CyRadar (no web form, no email – a true “ghost support” experience – they have now magically marked us as “clean” again. How did it happen? Who knows! We suspect their assessment might simply follow what others say – but that’s just speculation.
G-Data: Malware? Really?
G-Data’s assessment? “Malware.”
Again, we suspect heuristic scanning gone haywire. G-Data’s engines might have seen our download links and made the classic false positive leap: “Executable download? Must be malware.”
There is a running joke in the infosec community that antivirus vendors sometimes flag their own updates as malware during internal tests. We are starting to see why.
The lesson here? An executable is not inherently evil. If G-Data had taken the time to actually run our installer in a sandbox, they would have seen a clean, efficient install process that asks permission, avoids unnecessary permissions, and does exactly what it promises. Nothing more, nothing less. And of course they give no info or explanation, probably because there is none.
But the good thing is, the software universe offers many excellent alternative security products, doing a better job.
Update, June 6, 7am: G Data came in third place. Bright and early, G DATA SecurityLabs dropped us a note – “the submitted URL is currently not blocked by our software (anymore)”. Coffee and clean URLs – great way to start the day. Thanks G Data for clearing things up! Of course no apologies.
Seclookup: Malicious by Default?
Seclookup rounded out the group by labeling us as “Malicious.”
Unlike some of the bigger names on this list, Seclookup may not have the same level of resources or manual review processes. This makes them more prone to leaning heavily on automated classification systems.
While automation helps cover vast amounts of data, it comes at the cost of accuracy when not paired with sufficient human oversight. Automated scanners often flag new or relatively unknown domains as malicious simply due to their novelty and association with keywords like “VPN”.
Sorry Seclookup, but we are not malicious just because we talk about VPNs. Room for improvement, folks.
Update, June 7, 3 pm: The last one on the list and still stubbornly waving the “malicious” flag. Seriously, what is up with these guys? Do they take their business seriously, or are they simply out to lunch? Our best guess: they are just painfully slow on the uptake. We wait.
Update, June 12: We still wait. Ok, even security vendors deserve a second chance. So we re-send the false positive notification using their online form. An answer via email came promptly “Please Note: False positive tickets which qualifies to be whitelisted will be closed automatically without further reply on this ticket.”
The classic “We’ll just quietly close your ticket and vanish into the mist” maneuver. Because why bother with the tiny detail of telling users their issue was deemed a false positive and closed? Silly us for expecting communication from… a support team. 😉 We wait.
Why False Positives Matter (A Lot)
False positives are not just annoying; they have real-world consequences. Not that we would care much, but for other sites it is a real problem:
- Reputation Damage: When security vendors label a site as malicious, it undermines trust. Users get scared away, partners hesitate, and brand credibility takes a hit.
- Search Engine Rankings: Some search engines integrate security vendor feeds. A false positive can sink your SEO efforts faster than you can say “Google penalty”
- Lost Revenue: Scared visitors don’t convert. Period.
- Support Nightmares: Customers write in with concerns, requiring hours of support time to explain what went wrong.
In short: It is bad for business, and it is completely avoidable.
Why Security Vendors Need to Do Their Homework
Let us not pretend that detecting malware is easy. It isn’t. But if you are in the business of making these calls, you have an obligation to get it right.
- Context Awareness: VPNs are not inherently bad. Vendors need better context-driven analysis that evaluates intent, not just content.
- Sandbox Testing: Running downloads in secure environments can provide clear evidence of malicious behavior — or lack thereof.
- Manual Reviews: Automated systems should flag potential issues for human review before assigning a malicious verdict.
- Transparency: Vendors should provide more detailed reports explaining why a site was flagged. This allows site owners to address actual concerns instead of playing a guessing game.
- Appeal Processes: There should be streamlined, responsive appeal processes to quickly correct false positives.
The Ironic Punchline
Here is the kicker: Our VPN download site exists to protect users from malware, phishing, spying, and surveillance. In trying to defend users, we got flagged as the very thing we are helping in protecting them against. 🙂
A Call for Better Industry Standards
False positives will always happen, but they should not be this common or this damaging. The cybersecurity industry needs better standards, greater accountability, and improved collaboration with site owners.
Stay safe!