this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
65 points (91.1% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
232 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the point is that it's a bit silly to classify cracks as malware
Cracks modify executables...classic malware/virus behaviour. Almost the definition of malware.
Which is why windows uses a file protection system since at least XP
Enterprise antivirus products have had PUP (Potentially Unwanted Program) category forever. Seems its categorized as "HackTool" so not malware.
Not at all, a crack does something to an executable file that you use. Malware would do the exact same thing.
But you generally want that crack to do something to an executable. Do antivirus etc. tools just heuristically flag everything that looks like it modifies an executable? Lots of legitimate dev tools do that too, so it seems like it'd give a lot of false positives, but I haven't used Windows in ages so 🤷
Well, how is the system supposed to know that you want the crack to do something to that executable? The anti virus just sees something is happening and flags it. It does not see a difference.
I definitely get what you mean, I just have no idea if antivirus tools flag anything that looks like it modifies executables. My edit to the comment you're replying to may not have propagated to your instance yet, so here's what I added: