Bitwig 5.2 BETA available

[Milkman]

Windows Defender detected Trojan:Script/Wacatac.B!ml in bin\BitwigVampHost.exe. Did this happen for anyone else? False positive?

Edit: Same detection for the install file, Bitwig Studio 5.2 Beta 1.msi

Over time, I have to wonder about certain comments.

I also have defender on my win10 box that I do music production from, and I've never seen a false positive for Bitwig, Cubase, NI products, etc etc, but there is always someone who comes to the threads about various products to claim specific malware is attached to the installer of the <insert newly updated product here>. Ive seen this exact comment in probably 10 brand forums, usually with a nearly identical trojan being claimed.

I dont know what sort of crap you are up to, lmao, but this aint it.

The Bitwig installers do get false flagged on some systems. It has something to do with .msi files and not having some sort of signature or update or something to do with some viruses using .msi as a means of getting on your system. It's a generic flag from machine learning or something like that, so it's not accurate. I don't know and can't remember, the details aren't actually important. Somebody explained it once on Reddit tho and others chimed in to verify that was probably the scenario.

I don't think these people are trying to spread anti-Bitwig/Cubase/etc propaganda. I think they just went to install it, Windows Defender said "DANGER," and they are confused and alarmed about that haha. I'm not a Windows expert in the slightest, so I know when Defender warns me about something, I get a little nervous like "What the heck did I do?? Oh shit they got me!" because I just don't know any better haha.

Right, and I understand false positives that are triggered by unsigned installers, but those alerts (and how you interpret them) are not the same as a windows defender matched viral / malware signature. This is a specific assertion about a specific detection. My default windows defender would see this in the same way their default windows defender would. Right?

Im a 30+ year net/sysadmin. Security is part of my job. I wonder why my identically populated (I assume my defender and their defender are updated and configured identically) windows defender would not give me one single false positive? Ive seen people make nearly identical comments under at least 4-5 software releases in the last 6ish months alone, and every time others are unable to verify these false positives.

There are people who indeed spread "you are being hacked all the time, everywhere" propaganda, for one reason or another. Some are super paranoid & convinced they are being hacked all the time. Some are actually backdoored and infected, and various files are indeed infected, so they think the vendor's files are infected. Some are trying to sell security software. It doesnt matter to me WHY people do this.

To me, this is indicative of something lol.

[Funk Dracula]

Right, and I understand false positives that are triggered by unsigned installers, but those alerts (and how you interpret them) are not the same as a windows defender matched viral / malware signature. This is a specific assertion about a specific detection. My default windows defender would see this in the same way their default windows defender would. Right?

Im a 30+ year net/sysadmin. Security is part of my job. I wonder why my identically populated (I assume my defender and their defender are updated and configured identically) windows defender would not give me one single false positive? Ive seen people make nearly identical comments under at least 4-5 software releases in the last 6ish months alone, and every time others are unable to verify these false positives.

There are people who indeed spread "you are being hacked all the time, everywhere" propaganda, for one reason or another. Some are super paranoid & convinced they are being hacked all the time. Some are actually backdoored and infected, and various files are indeed infected, so they think the vendor's files are infected. Some are trying to sell security software. It doesnt matter to me WHY people do this.

To me, this is indicative of something lol.

I'll take your word for it. I thought the machine learning part was kind of a dynamic thing but I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff so I'll just refrain.

Really I just assume most people are an idiot, much like myself, and give some leeway accordingly. I just try to be helpful if I think the dummy things I have to say could be helpful. lol

Cheers

[Milkman]

Right, and I understand false positives that are triggered by unsigned installers, but those alerts (and how you interpret them) are not the same as a windows defender matched viral / malware signature. This is a specific assertion about a specific detection. My default windows defender would see this in the same way their default windows defender would. Right?

Im a 30+ year net/sysadmin. Security is part of my job. I wonder why my identically populated (I assume my defender and their defender are updated and configured identically) windows defender would not give me one single false positive? Ive seen people make nearly identical comments under at least 4-5 software releases in the last 6ish months alone, and every time others are unable to verify these false positives.

There are people who indeed spread "you are being hacked all the time, everywhere" propaganda, for one reason or another. Some are super paranoid & convinced they are being hacked all the time. Some are actually backdoored and infected, and various files are indeed infected, so they think the vendor's files are infected. Some are trying to sell security software. It doesnt matter to me WHY people do this.

To me, this is indicative of something lol.

I'll take your word for it. I thought the machine learning part was kind of a dynamic thing but I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff so I'll just refrain.

Really I just assume most people are an idiot, much like myself, and give some leeway accordingly. I just try to be helpful if I think the dummy things I have to say could be helpful. lol

Cheers

Well, the heuristics part of each antiviral product is definitely part of the false positives, as this is an attempt to guess/extrapolate on emergent threats without having ever seen them before. This naturally leads to false positives.

But when numerous people are all using the same internet-connected security software, that software's code and definitions are up to date, and only 1 person sees a false positive while everyone else doesnt, something doesnt match. Either the 1 person is infected otherwise and that infection is replicating and tampering in realtime, or the person is mis-reading a log, or just making stuff up.

Sometimes people are paranoid and crank up the detection thresholds for their janky McAfee or "Bad Files Cleaner Pro" or whatever, and that software says "WARNING! This will likely cause false positives", but they ignore that warning and crank it up lol.

[drsyncenstein]

I was wondering why in 2024 a DAW would add a modelled Pultec clone and a compressor.
Even if it sounds good.
Since there are already so many of them that their developers must be wandering the streets with an empty mug and a sign saying "starving vst developer, please feed me".
Could it be that all that is just to make the linux platform a more viable environment?
So 5.3 will add reverb+ and convolution + ?

[pekbro]

It's about time Bitwig added some decent effects that folks might actually use. They are well behind live
in that regard imo. I for one, like them and am using them, for now at least.

[anders-o]

Windows Defender detected Trojan:Script/Wacatac.B!ml in bin\BitwigVampHost.exe. Did this happen for anyone else? False positive?

Edit: Same detection for the install file, Bitwig Studio 5.2 Beta 1.msi

Over time, I have to wonder about certain comments.

I also have defender on my win10 box that I do music production from, and I've never seen a false positive for Bitwig, Cubase, NI products, etc etc, but there is always someone who comes to the threads about various products to claim specific malware is attached to the installer of the <insert newly updated product here>. Ive seen this exact comment in probably 10 brand forums, usually with a nearly identical trojan being claimed.

I dont know what sort of crap you are up to, lmao, but this aint it.

What do you suggest? Ignore all warnings? Lol, hate to disappoint but I'm not really up to anything here.

I've never really seen windows defender actually catch something, so when it does I was a bit concerned. It wasn't just detecting something generic on the .msi, but also on a specific binary (BitwigVampHost.exe) . However, since virustotal came up green on the .msi (and since it seems to be a known issue with recently created installers) I'm not really worried about this one.

However, you can never really be 100% sure that a dev machine didn't at some point get compromised and all builds got infected. It's unlikely, but still possible.

[spoontechnique]

I'd always rather have a good Bitwig device than a VST. I wouldn't download a Pultech emulation, but I'll gladly use it now that it's easily accessible.

I love all the + devices. Delay+, the Mod+, EQ+, etc. Reverb is the obvious candidate for a refresh, since it's so-so IMO. Convolution is fine as is, not sure what you could even change to improve it.

The CPU drain of Comp+ is a bummer. For mixing a rock band, it's normal to have a compressor on every drum track, every buss, the guitars, multiple layers of vocals, etc. That adds up.

[SmajjL]

[Milkman]

Windows Defender detected Trojan:Script/Wacatac.B!ml in bin\BitwigVampHost.exe. Did this happen for anyone else? False positive?

Edit: Same detection for the install file, Bitwig Studio 5.2 Beta 1.msi

Over time, I have to wonder about certain comments.

I also have defender on my win10 box that I do music production from, and I've never seen a false positive for Bitwig, Cubase, NI products, etc etc, but there is always someone who comes to the threads about various products to claim specific malware is attached to the installer of the <insert newly updated product here>. Ive seen this exact comment in probably 10 brand forums, usually with a nearly identical trojan being claimed.

I dont know what sort of crap you are up to, lmao, but this aint it.

What do you suggest? Ignore all warnings? Lol, hate to disappoint but I'm not really up to anything here.

I've never really seen windows defender actually catch something, so when it does I was a bit concerned. It wasn't just detecting something generic on the .msi, but also on a specific binary (BitwigVampHost.exe) . However, since virustotal came up green on the .msi (and since it seems to be a known issue with recently created installers) I'm not really worried about this one.

However, you can never really be 100% sure that a dev machine didn't at some point get compromised and all builds got infected. It's unlikely, but still possible.

Obviously ignoring all warnings isnt the way, lol. The point is, when your Windows Defender (a standard product shared by many, which *should* have nearly identical code and malware definitions on every online, non-domain windows 10,11 machine) is giving you a SPECIFIC match for a SPECIFIC backdoor/Trojan, but nobody else's is, this should show you that the issue is local and not with the vendor. Posting "maybe the vendor's installer is compromised" sounds very alarming and would suggest a major breach.

Again - unsigned installers are one thing. They cause a small colored popup on windows 7, 10, 11 (no real people use 8 lmao), depending on how you have notifications set, and it notifies you the installer is unsigned. It does NOT notify you that a Trojan of a specific name has been found. A false positive of that kind comes from 1) misconfigured heuristics (too sensitive) 2) an actual infection, and your installer became infected from you not the other way around, 3) something else.

If you do a quick online search for that trojan, you find literally HUNDREDS of bullshit security sites trying to sell you subscriptions to all manner of scanners, cleaners, services, and nonsense. When non tech-savvy people read something like you posted, they usually go do a search about it, and what do they see? ITS EVERYWHERE IN EVERYTHING ZOMG BUY THIS SOFTWARE TO PROTECT YOU lmao

The last time I had windows defender catch something, it was something. It was years ago, and I know what it was. again - my default defender would give me the same false alarm it gave you. How is your defender configured? Realtime? Sample submission/cloud?

[Milkman]

I'd always rather have a good Bitwig device than a VST. I wouldn't download a Pultech emulation, but I'll gladly use it now that it's easily accessible.

I love all the + devices. Delay+, the Mod+, EQ+, etc. Reverb is the obvious candidate for a refresh, since it's so-so IMO. Convolution is fine as is, not sure what you could even change to improve it.

The CPU drain of Comp+ is a bummer. For mixing a rock band, it's normal to have a compressor on every drum track, every buss, the guitars, multiple layers of vocals, etc. That adds up.

I admit I do not do much rock band production and am not the best mixing/mastering engineer, but why dont you use comp+ as an FX bus? Do you need this to be an insert? I may not have any idea what Im talking about lol, as Ive recorded a grand total of 1 guitar lol.

[drsyncenstein]

It's about time Bitwig added some decent effects that folks might actually use. They are well behind live
in that regard imo. I for one, like them and am using them, for now at least.

I bought Bitwig because it would be different from live, so i would hope they put their efforts in other area's than plugins.

[pdxindy]

I'd always rather have a good Bitwig device than a VST. I wouldn't download a Pultech emulation, but I'll gladly use it now that it's easily accessible.

I love all the + devices. Delay+, the Mod+, EQ+, etc. Reverb is the obvious candidate for a refresh, since it's so-so IMO. Convolution is fine as is, not sure what you could even change to improve it.

The CPU drain of Comp+ is a bummer. For mixing a rock band, it's normal to have a compressor on every drum track, every buss, the guitars, multiple layers of vocals, etc. That adds up.

Everything else equal, I'd rather have a Bitwig device than a plugin as well. Easy to use in the Device Pane, easier to modulate if desired, nothing extra to install, maintain and update.

I also like all the + devices. And yeah, a good algo Reverb+ might be next.

And yeah, Comp+ is heavy on the CPU. I have a hope that they optimize it some before official release.

[drsyncenstein]

I'd always rather have a good Bitwig device than a VST. I wouldn't download a Pultech emulation, but I'll gladly use it now that it's easily accessible.

I love all the + devices. Delay+, the Mod+, EQ+, etc. Reverb is the obvious candidate for a refresh, since it's so-so IMO. Convolution is fine as is, not sure what you could even change to improve it.

The CPU drain of Comp+ is a bummer. For mixing a rock band, it's normal to have a compressor on every drum track, every buss, the guitars, multiple layers of vocals, etc. That adds up.

I find convolution a bit disappointing. Limited possibilities for adjusting the impulse. Try it next to convolution pro from Live and you'll hear that soundwise BW convolution could do with an update.
Delay+ and Chorus+ are great, but when you've been using a DAW for some years, new plugins are just added to the pile.

[drsyncenstein]

I'd always rather have a good Bitwig device than a VST. I wouldn't download a Pultech emulation, but I'll gladly use it now that it's easily accessible.

I love all the + devices. Delay+, the Mod+, EQ+, etc. Reverb is the obvious candidate for a refresh, since it's so-so IMO. Convolution is fine as is, not sure what you could even change to improve it.

The CPU drain of Comp+ is a bummer. For mixing a rock band, it's normal to have a compressor on every drum track, every buss, the guitars, multiple layers of vocals, etc. That adds up.

Everything else equal, I'd rather have a Bitwig device than a plugin as well. Easy to use in the Device Pane, easier to modulate if desired, nothing extra to install, maintain and update.

I also like all the + devices. And yeah, a good algo Reverb+ might be next.

And yeah, Comp+ is heavy on the CPU. I have a hope that they optimize it some before official release.

The plugin remotes makes the difference between Bitwig and vst plugins a moot point. I map them out once, then i can treat them like they were Bitwig devices.

[mevla]

For mixing and mastering I keep the same approach as I used to do : changing hats.

First I put on the hat of a creator. So I create using Bitwig. I add FX here and there either for sound shaping or just to make everything more plesant to listen to, although always keeping in mind that there'll be the 'other guy' with the other hat that will mix tracks and then master them.

Before I used to physically underline this change of hats by mixing and mastering using Mixbus32C. Now I will do it using Bitwig but I will keep the same approach as before which was : exporting all the audio tracks from creation to present them them to the 'other hat' for mixing. So that the 'other guy' will find a bunch of audio tracks to mix and, a blank slate to start with eg. no FX being used at all. All CPU cycles remaining free. Usually the 'other hat' gets the files a couple of days later, so there's some distance, some pause between creating and mixing/mastering.

Same with mastering. Once the mix is done, the stereo result is exported and will be mastered starting again with a blank slate FX wise, all CPU cycles free.