(November 6, 2022, 10:15 PM)CentralIntel Wrote: (November 6, 2022, 07:19 PM)mishka Wrote: We would need some kind of test for people to prove they are capable of determining if a tool is safe to use.
That is too much labor for no compensation. Verifiers on UC can pop code into their collection of malware scanners, but since everything on here has some kind of red flag for an anti-virus it would take hours of manual review for something to be greenlit and even more if you are trying to find that one malicious .dll in a cracked burpsuite install. It's a nice idea, but nobody wants to do that much work for free. This just ain't it chief. -support
Clearly, you don't actually have any malware analysis experience, most threads will get accepted near instantly due to them being GitHub links, the ones that aren't can usually be determined to be malware within a couple of minutes. For example, a "valorant combo checker" should not be making windows API calls to check the volume sizes and then checking the registry for changes.
At the absolute most, it can take maybe 15m to reverse engineer a sample to check if it's malicious.
If you don't know what you're talking about don't give your input.
(November 6, 2022, 10:22 PM)Kurd Wrote: As a concept it is good, but in practice, it will be a problem:- Too much work
- Threads will be delayed to be alive
- He is a human and he may make mistakes with a false feeling of safety by ppl, they may install these tools on their main machine
Refer to my post above and of course, there will be some that might slip through but if you're coming to download third party cracked software you should know to not be running it on your main machine and we can only protect users so much.
