I downloaded it from github, checked it via virustotal and it had several red flags. False positive? Safe?
https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149669
We have a Steam curator now. You should be following it. https://store.steampowered.com/curator/44994899-RPGHQ/
T2Fix - where to download?
Moderator: Mod Janitor
-
Yankee Zulu
- Posts: 645
- Joined: May 8, '24
-
Geolocation
-
Vergil
- Posts: 15670
- Joined: Sep 6, '23
-
Geolocation
I'm just stating the facts.
Question is are you going to gargle the truth or swallow?
Question is are you going to gargle the truth or swallow?
-
maidenhaver
- Posts: 9452
- Joined: Apr 17, '23
- Location: ROLE PLAYING GAME
-
Geolocation
Adventurer's Guild
-
Rand
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sep 4, '23
- Location: On my last legs
-
Geolocation
Adventurer's Guild
Explanation:
Fan patches often use similar code to viruses because they are doing similar things: using a software routine to scan and make changes to .dll files and executables.
This often fools antivirus programs that primarily look for those routines.
What you should have considered: antivirus software usually uses an online database for threats.
When an antivirus detects a "problem", but it's still unknown and the patch software is (many) years old, this means it looked at the database after detecting the data alteration routine but didn't find an entry for it.
If it was malicious, the database would have long since had an entry for it, therefore the patch is almost certainly safe and just a false positive due to code routine profiling.
And, since the makers made no attempt to hide the routine from an antivirus program, which they would have done if it was malicious because they don't want to tip off the users, it is almost certainly safe.
Fan patches often use similar code to viruses because they are doing similar things: using a software routine to scan and make changes to .dll files and executables.
This often fools antivirus programs that primarily look for those routines.
What you should have considered: antivirus software usually uses an online database for threats.
When an antivirus detects a "problem", but it's still unknown and the patch software is (many) years old, this means it looked at the database after detecting the data alteration routine but didn't find an entry for it.
If it was malicious, the database would have long since had an entry for it, therefore the patch is almost certainly safe and just a false positive due to code routine profiling.
And, since the makers made no attempt to hide the routine from an antivirus program, which they would have done if it was malicious because they don't want to tip off the users, it is almost certainly safe.
You may as well not bother replying to my posts if it's to argue anything except concrete facts or your personal opinion. I still probably won't see it.
Reject your retarded-wing political programming and learn to think.
If you can.
Reject your retarded-wing political programming and learn to think.
If you can.