Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54577 readers

205 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

[email protected]

Anti malware that can detect cracks and flag them as so, but can also distinguish from trojact and malware? Also, that can be configured to don't use too many resources when not required (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was thinking, mbam, have you got other suggestions for Windows 10? Also, is there a good setup for when I'm running games I bought, and I don't need active scanning of threats? (Especially for legit games that use resources intensively)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The liblzma vulnerability does not have have anything to do with antivirus. Running antivirus doesn’t help with that. Same goes for log4j. The liblzma and log4j vulnerabilities didn’t get detected by antivirus and it didn’t help prevent it. Remote exploits can also only happen if you either have some service exposed to the internet or visiting a malicious website with a vulnerable browser. Antivirus can only prevent scriptkiddies but any sophisticated malware will just bypass av

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I explained what a remote exploit was and gave examples of remote exploits.

Are you claiming that antivirus isn't able to detect malware entering through an remote exploit?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Antivirus is not what’s stopping g remote exploits. For a remote exploit to work you either have to expose ports to the internet (port forwarding) and run a vulnerable service on said port or visit a malicious website with a vulnerable browser. Antivirus won’t protect you from more than a scriptkiddie regardless of whether or not it is a remote exploit

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Yeah, that was you continuing to show how inexperienced you are.

For a remote exploit to work the computer or device has to expose ports to the network your computer is connected to.

"Remote" means that the vulnerability does not require local access. So if your friend connects his infected device to your wifi, all devices connected to the same network essentially are at risk, depending on what's listening on the devices and what vulnerabilities they have.

Your idea about avoiding bad websites is ridiculous. History is full of examples where third party ads had been created to infect one way or another. That's ads that users on legitimate site were exposed to. That's just one little example. There have been numerous examples of malicious sleeping JavaScript code that suddenly wakes up and contacts it's command-and-control server and then download malicious JavaScript code to unknowing site visitors.

Furthermore, you didn't understand my question. Of course antivirus is able to stop malware it recognizes that enters through a remote exploit. The user with antivirus would at least have a chance of knowing that something was up each time and attempt to infect was made.

You on the other hand would sit there clueless with your little zombie computer and laugh at all them script kiddies.

But hey... You just continue trying to infect others around you with bad security advice and have a good day. I'm outta here.