I use ESET and rate of false positives is very low for me (as long as you disable detect "potentially unwanted applications", it asks during installation).
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
64 points (90.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54746 readers
222 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
This is impossible, all antivirus will give false positive sometimes and they will be annoying since they need to be intrusive to "catch" some virus
You're not going to find an antivirus that isn't intrusive because that is their entire duty. However, Kaspersky has a very high malware detection rate compared to other AV solutions
Use the megathread, it has lists of trusted providers (goat symbol).
Of course, that's not good enough, so my "antivirus" is to use an entirely separate device for gaming/piracy and a lower power device for production and work. If my gaming device gets compromised, the attacker will just know how many hours I spend in vampire survivors :)
the attacker will just know how many hours I spend in vampire survivors :)
You could prevent this by telling us now.
I haven't used an Antivirus in years... That's one advantage of GNU OS's. I run cracks inside sandboxes which then run Wine and DXVK for compatibility.
i don't think that's possible mate for 2 reasons :
- software companys pay antivirus software makers to flag and remove game cracks
- cracks use obfuscation and workaround techniques that are similar to whats used in viruses so most flag them as mallisious
So what you are saying you want a shitty AV that would not recognize a potentially malicious executable? Any normal AV should flag crack as a potential threat due to what it does.
Stick with Defender and whitelist executables you trust. This is computing 101.
probably I will be punished for this comment but: Kaspersky
second best AV is Malwarebytes,
there is a subreddit for ranking them r/antivirus or something
I sometimes think about disabling defender I think theres a site that can do it. Downside is it'll probably break windows but yeah it annoys me it's always wasting my battery plus yeah it throws fits over things like cracks
Last time I was mad enough to think about this it wasn't even a crack it was Autohotkey it didn't like.
Think it's also important that it's not a resource hog. None are perfect but I recommend ESET.
malwarebytes will flag cracks like all the others but when I used to clean computers for a living, it rarely gave a false positive and found the most bullshit on Windows pcs. This was a few years back so I don't keep up with how it is these days.
You're not going to find an AV that doesn't flag modifications as virus/malware. That's kind of the definition of malicious behaviour by a program.
Hell, Windows itself will overwrite changes you make to certain exscutables/dll's, etc, with its own file protection system.
Test your cracks in a VM. Then use them as needed, or do the cracking in a VM.
Just don't use one. Just don't download anything dodgy and you're golden.
They just said they were downloading arbitrary binaries to execute
Where?
He's downloading cracks or cracked executables
The cracking groups aren't exactly signing their work with a verifiable public key
Yeah but that should be okay as long as he's getting it from legitimate places (rarbg, official fitgirl site, cs.rin.ru, rutracker etc).
I've not had an AV for like 10+ years, had defender disabled with GPO as soon as I installed W10 and had no issues.
The best AV is your brain. Obviously if you download GTA_6 _(Brazil)_by_xP3tYa1337x.pdf.html with an embedded .hta directly from an IP address in Kamchatka and you have IE installed then yeah maybe you need to give things a manual scan pass with defender or malwarebytes (or just toss it in a VM) once in a while but otherwise you're golden.
Even most vulns today labeled 0day are either unexploitable or require the user to be a dumb motherfucker.
Trust me.
If u are on Linux I recommend using firejail on the executable
Obviously he is not on linux
Have you considered getting NordVPN? A YouTuber told me it protects against 100% of hackers
Wow that's so Narwhal Bacon, I heard about NordVPN while watching my daily Skibidi Raid Shadow Legends content while eating my World of Tanks themed Factor meal with extra soy while trying to ignore my dad beating my mom after his BetterHelp appointment
just like our sponsor - nordvpn™️. I use nordvpn™️ to protect against hackers when using public wifi - and now you can too with the code ‘myballs’ - get 99% off a one year subscription to nordvpn™️ today
Hilarious that people can't tell this is sarcasm.
How do you know they're false positives?
Windows defender claimed they're bad because they are cracks, and doesn't mention any reason it thinks that would be a virus/trojan or something I dont want
"HackTool:Win32/crack" from games downloaded on fitgirl repacks site (the correct one)
Isn't that a matter of behavior? The crack is doing something expected from a crack and the system warns you because most wouldn't use it without being aware. If you really trust the file, add it as an exception.
Or do you want a software that can vet good cracks from bad cracks?
I think the point is that it's a bit silly to classify cracks as 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:
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 🤷
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.
Windows defender only lets you whitelist by file, folder, or process. You could whitelist a specific folder, but if you want to whitelist by category you'll have to use a different antivirus product.