this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
25 points (90.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54286 readers
504 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
💰 Please help cover server costs.
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
Not the whole code but only the part that triggers those flags. Not everyone is versed in C to "verify the code" himself... That's a stupid take, It's like saying to a toddler to change his diapers on his own when it's dirty.
Strangely enough It went from 1 trigger to 29 triggers after 1 update? Seems rather sketchy :/ In the past (pirated games/software) I would have ignored those warnings and add an exception into my firewall... But nowadays with all the crypto schemes and obfuscated code, I won't go near anything like that.
You don't say. And the developer they don't trust pointing to some piece of code and telling those people who cannot understand it themselves that it's not malicious achieves anything?
If it's a false positive there isn't even anything to show in the first place. Nobody but the antivirus vendors know for sure why something triggers a false positive.
It's like a toddler telling you you're changing their diapers wrong and expecting you to explain to them what you did wrong even though you did everything correctly and the toddler doesn't know anything about changing diapers in the first place.
I guess it's all a question of point of view and reference point. 💁 I can't argue against your opinion on the other side.
I do agree though that from this point of view it also make sense.