How accurate/reliable is this thing and what better alternatives (if any) does /g/ use?
download only from safe piracy sites
>>107268873That's what I do, but I'm wondering in general.
it will catch skids, extremely unlikely for homebrews/anomaly detection from the infected wangblows boxes i would repair i liked to take the files clamav found and upload them to that site, at least 1-3 vendors would flag them
>>107268734As someone previously hinted at: ClamAVThe engine is pretty solid, at least as good as any of the commercial offerings, and clam actually does backend scanning for a lot of big names. Might want to look for fingerprints you can augment it's list with, because like everything else it's only as good as the list it's looking for, and like everything else known nation state malware doesn't get flagged (until you augment the list).
>>107269220Any list recommendations?
>>107269248https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ClamAV_Unofficial_SignaturesI don't seem to see where I picked the others up atm...
>>107269284Can you share a pastebin with the links?
feels like nobody tries to upload malware anymore these days.all the porn games i pirate are always clean or have one false positive. went against my better judgment and played one with like 8 flags the other day and nothing happened either.
>>107269355>or have one false positive.This agitates me. Plenty of things that do nothing more than generate a key trigger alerts. Some things actually diagnose them as harmful. Between the false positives, and false negatives, it raises questions of trust.>played one with like 8 flags the other day and nothing happened either.That *you* detected. Yet.
>>107269378And he might never detect. I remember a study about thousands of PCs still running hidden malware from decades ago.
>>107269378>>107269418no harm no foul, still got my rocks off.seems like people that actually make malware have all switched to corporate targets since gamers pirating games obviously have no money.
>>107268734Depends on who's doing the scanning. If they're using NOD32, then it's as safe as it gets.
>>107269433>NOD32Sorry we've been on 64bit for 20 years (which is 32 in hexadecimal, btw)
>>107269427You're assuming targetting for data exfiltration from *that* machine? Qute.
>>107268734>better alternativenone
