<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Increased FP's for Wildfire Viruses in Advanced Threat Prevention Discussions</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/216130#M341</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello there. I'm with the Palo Alto Networks Support team.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please open a Support case with us and share the samples you observed as False Positives to ensure that&amp;nbsp;we can identify the issue, and provide with a&amp;nbsp;fix that will prevent samples like yours from being incorrectly classified.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 16:28:05 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mivaldi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-05-31T16:28:05Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Increased FP's for Wildfire Viruses</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/215520#M336</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Has anyone noticed an increase in the number of false-positives being generated by Wildfire in the last few weeks?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I seem to be getting a increased number of alerts for WF learnt viruses on apps that have never caused issues before.&amp;nbsp; Always worried that it is indeed a real alert, but as far as we can tell it's not.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just wondering if anyone else has had something similar and\or if anyone knows if PA have deployed new detection criteria etc?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2018 19:26:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/215520#M336</guid>
      <dc:creator>apackard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-25T19:26:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Increased FP's for Wildfire Viruses</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/216130#M341</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello there. I'm with the Palo Alto Networks Support team.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please open a Support case with us and share the samples you observed as False Positives to ensure that&amp;nbsp;we can identify the issue, and provide with a&amp;nbsp;fix that will prevent samples like yours from being incorrectly classified.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 16:28:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/216130#M341</guid>
      <dc:creator>mivaldi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-31T16:28:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Increased FP's for Wildfire Viruses</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/223992#M367</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Same here. TAC cases logged for batches of false positives. Also seeing an increase in wildfire-virus FP's. It's due to "signature collisions". The fix is not great. You must exempt the signatures that cause false positives. It's matching elements in a benign document and flagging those as malicious.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2018 12:43:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/increased-fp-s-for-wildfire-viruses/m-p/223992#M367</guid>
      <dc:creator>Quinton-H2020</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-30T12:43:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

