Pretty sad that people can't grasp the concept of a false positive and that their scanners could be wrong. I'm sure the Admins here are sick and tired of explaining it to people that don't read or follow instructions to comply to the purpose of this thread. Why should they allow warnings to be posted when it is in all likelihood a false positive--making your warning a cry of wolf?
My suggestion to everybody is to send samples of files that are being flagged as bad to the software companies that are flagging them. Tho they don't all make it as easy as it should be, they all have a way for you to send them files so that they can update their definitions. If you do that, what they are calling some kind of virus or malware today will be an OK file tomorrow once the corrected definitions have been updated. Or if it is a real threat it will be confirmed and get flagged again.
A squared and Antivir give out the most False Positives, so you should question their results--especially if no other scanners are reporting the file as bad. I know because(and for other reasons) I run Antivir myself. I don't like the FP's but I can live with them because I know what they are and how to deal with them.
For AntiVir, go to this page:
http://analysis.avira.com/samples/index.php
Their help file mentions submitting by email and from Quarantine, but this webpage is the most efficient and easy. I get immediate confirmation by email that the file is submitted and a confirmation that it is a false positive or not in 24 hours.
For A Squared you can find how to submit files here:
http://www.emsisoft.com/en/support/faq/?id=62
I've never run this program as I never much cared for it--things like them saying be 100% sure it's a false positive before you submit. The reason you're submitting is because you aren't sure but suspect a FP. It's their job to be sure. But glancing at their forums they do ask people to submit FP's via the Contacts page. There also is a new feature where quarantine can be configured to rescan flagged files after updating to correct FP's. But some one needs to report FP's for the defs to be corrected so this method is too passive for my tastes.
I can kind of understand the discouragement of reporting FP's. Most people don't know what a FP is, so if everyone reported everything that got flagged it would bog down the system. So use some common sense to justify your suspicions before sending. If only one file has been found, it could be a FP. It is more common for malware to come in groups and they are very complex which mean several files are needed. And if you get one file but no symptoms, such as a sudden slow down and a rash of popups, among others, then it's likely a FP.
As the Admins here suggest, scanning at Jotti or VirusTotal will give more immediate results, since you want to know what you're dealing with here in order to install the giveaway software in the timeframe required. If only your scanner is flagging the file, then it is 90% probably a FP. There may be more scanners to flag it and still it could be a FP--some use the same scanner engine and share definitions--I think you'll find when AntiVir flags a file the same two other scanners do as well--can't quite remember but I Think Gateway is one.