Cool, all issues fixed!

The version number of Google Chrome​ (Portable) is now detected (version 67.0.3396.62 shown) so this issue is solved.

Cool, you updated the download link, so one URL fits for all languages. You also show now an app-icon and also the detected version is correct! So I mark the topic as "Solved"

Cool, now I see the app icon and also the installed version 2.39.1.0 is detected correctly. The issue is solved.

Currently a very large number of Portable Applications is detected by VulnDetect. Here just an exemplary list, what is detected on one of my test-clients: AnyDesk AutoHideDesktopIcons CCleaner Cinebench Colour Contrast Analyser (CCA) CPU-Z Defraggler Don't Sleep DUMo Eraser FileZilla Firefox FreeCommander XE (free) GPU-Z h2testw HeavyLoad HWiNFO Hardware Info Program KeePassXC Malwarebytes AdwCleaner Mister Group System Explorer Notepad++ NVDA One Commander Patch My PC Personal Backup PhraseExpress PortableApps.com Platform PrivaZer Quick Any2Ico Recuva Rufus ScreenPresso (beta) Screenshot Captor Speccy StressMyPC SUMo Thunderbird TreeSize Free UltraSearch UserBenchMark WingetUI WinMerge WizFile WizTree WSCC Missing Portable Applications can be requested in the App-Requests section in the forums. Therefore, I mark this topic as Implemented.

Updates for drivers is a very important feature! Where users can go to any app website and download and install a new version, for drivers this is a bit more complicated. Users have to search for the correct driver (correct hardware, correct OS, correct version like x64 or x32). Even I have problems doing this (so I don't investigate the time) and I would estimate my skills to quiet well. Next driver updates increase the stability of the system, increase the security and also offer new features. So in my opinion a driver scan is a very important feature!

Now VulnDetect shows in the list of apps available Windows updates. Here one example from my personal PC: [image: 1597260683017-cfa9c362-eb98-492c-aa6e-01280fd66f6b-image.png] Great, this feature is very helpful!

@tom IMHO it would make sense to show the "(64-Bit)" behind the name of the application, so users see the differences between two identical apps at once (without having to expand the entries). By the way: if you set an entry to [Implemented], then you also have to update the Overview of Feature and Functionality Requests. So just leave a comment, that it is implemented, and I will do the rest.

The short answer is that we have to. The bit longer is that the agent should be able to handle this in almost all cases, so it is mostly a question of the rules. However, the first iteration of the rules will not be able to handle this correctly.