UPX is open source and works on linux , windows and mac (ie. cross platform)
I would like to know why the torrenting space isn’t using it already / having a mature discussion about it.
. Malware is enough of a problem that there’s no way I’d want to start downloading crap that’s been UPXed since that’s going to make it impossible to determine if it’s legitimate or not by (most) endpoint tools, or they’ll just see UPX and go ‘bad shit!’ on everything.
You had clearly misunderstood what this tool is.
Its tool for better compression of executables which could be used in data sensitive (Like , most people would agree with me that some times decrypting on our own local device could be better since it could be more predictable than waiting for seeders , because there are very less seeders)
He didn’t, malware guys use UPX and it’s true that antiviruses scream bloody murder when they see it. It’s also true you can’t see what’s inside unless you have special tools to do so. UPX also has one huge downside, it’s its RAM usage, due to it’s inner workings it’s unable to use optimisations that normal binaries can like page sharing.
okay so what alternative do you suggest which could be better used in exe formats
I feel that unzipping from exe isn’t the best solution to this problem
(like some exe contain some zip file inside them and extract them)
It’s a compression tool that is also used to mask malware, and you’re proposing to expand it’s use in a use case that’s ALREADY coated in enough malware to give you herpes just by walking past your average tracker.
It’s a bad idea from a security perspective, and it’s not going to outperform a LZMA-based compression tool using a large dictionary (7zip, etc.) which also isn’t fucking with binaries in a way that makes detecting and preventing malicious software more complicated for the average user, who typically knows absolutely zero about what’s going on.
I had actually agreed with you , here was my initial comment , though I just wanted to look into upx github page more
okay now I understand what you mean.
Basically the same threat model follows if you want to unpack a upx
and it also states
- We will *NOT* add any sort of protection and/or encryption.
This only gives people a false feeling of security because
all "protectors" can be broken by definition.
What would you recommend instead ? .
But also if you are extracting that file , you are basically running it , but the main issue is that antivirus can't read it
new response:
But on https://upx.github.io/ , its given as
>secure: as UPX is documented Open Source since many years any relevant Security/Antivirus software is able to peek inside UPX compressed apps to verify them
I am really sorry mate but please read about upx once because I don't know why but you just seem so defensive to this change without actually giving any good reason. Though you do seem knowledgable so I am obviously looking to have more discussion , but just a bit more detailed.
Thanks , have a good day / good night
well then you could still extract it using upx , (basically if I remember correctly , you use upx on one exe file to generate another (I think this is the intended use case of what I am suggesting) & then use antivirus on that.
according to their website you can list, test and unpack your executables. Also, a checksum of both the compressed and uncompressed file is maintained internally.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Sorry, I meant antivirus. (Corpo IT calls it endpoint, since it’s, well, the endpoint.)
You had clearly misunderstood what this tool is. Its tool for better compression of executables which could be used in data sensitive (Like , most people would agree with me that some times decrypting on our own local device could be better since it could be more predictable than waiting for seeders , because there are very less seeders)
He didn’t, malware guys use UPX and it’s true that antiviruses scream bloody murder when they see it. It’s also true you can’t see what’s inside unless you have special tools to do so. UPX also has one huge downside, it’s its RAM usage, due to it’s inner workings it’s unable to use optimisations that normal binaries can like page sharing.
okay so what alternative do you suggest which could be better used in exe formats I feel that unzipping from exe isn’t the best solution to this problem
(like some exe contain some zip file inside them and extract them)
Just putting all your stuff in one big .7z so you can unpack it to directory then scan them all w/ AV.
Politely, but no.
It’s a compression tool that is also used to mask malware, and you’re proposing to expand it’s use in a use case that’s ALREADY coated in enough malware to give you herpes just by walking past your average tracker.
It’s a bad idea from a security perspective, and it’s not going to outperform a LZMA-based compression tool using a large dictionary (7zip, etc.) which also isn’t fucking with binaries in a way that makes detecting and preventing malicious software more complicated for the average user, who typically knows absolutely zero about what’s going on.
I had actually agreed with you , here was my initial comment , though I just wanted to look into upx github page more
new response:
well then you could still extract it using upx , (basically if I remember correctly , you use upx on one exe file to generate another (I think this is the intended use case of what I am suggesting) & then use antivirus on that. according to their website you can list, test and unpack your executables. Also, a checksum of both the compressed and uncompressed file is maintained internally.