Test strips. PSA: Everyone should test their drugs and carry narcan.
I was gonna say “have someone else smoke it first”
And don’t use alone, pretty tricky to narcan yourself. Also gotta watch out lots of non-fentanyl tranqs getting mixed in with shit these days and narcan only works on opiods
If it’s suss use a vm before your main OS.
This is a good idea and a good practice in my opinion. Some malicious code detects when it’s being sandboxed and hides itself until it’s running somewhere it can do damage though.
Once malware is VM aware it can also get outside a VM. Furthermore, malware can be written to seat itself comfortably in your PC and lay low for hours, days, weeks before becoming active. Installing in a VM and waiting for shit to hit the fan is not always reliable.
Getting out of a VM reliably is not usually trivial, and VM escapes are usually designed to target specific configurations rather than an arbitrary deployment. A VM with a minimum amount of shared resources is usually a reasonable security boundary unless you think the malware you’re analyzing has hypervisor-specific 0 days.
the malware has to be very advanced and specifically target your hypervisor version to escape a VM.
in the context of cracked software, it is highly improbable that you’ll find malware with this capabilities.
And start with no network for the VM
If the installer is small enough (<650MB I believe), you can upload it to virustotal.com to have it be scanned by ~65 antivirus programs
Inhale and wait
I always keep a bootable usb just incase…
- Scan it with AV. This might still product false positives, so understand the difference between viruses and PUPs.
- Go with keygens if at all possible. Run them in a sandbox, like sandboxie-plus.
- Only download cracks from trusted sites, and from trusted scene groups.
- Preferably check the crack with a MD5 or CRC, so you know its not been tampered with.
If someone malicious can tamper with a crack, surely it is trivial to tamper with the NFO. So how do I know the MD5 sum is the original one?
My take would be to check multiple sources and still be suspicious with the files even if they match.
@helix2301 @millions @piracy it is both free and there paid version of it that has more features as if you scroll down to near the bottom of the page https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve
Isn’t DaVinci resolve free?
They pay wall hardware encoding, and possibly other features, like high resolution formats.
@ccdfa yeah but h264/mp4 exports are paid only from what I heard
On windows, the only features locked behind the paywall are required by professionals in film. This includes, but isn’t limited to, larger than 4K timelines, 10 bit footage, advanced fusion filters and effects, niche export quality settings. As long as you’re not working in the media industry, you won’t need these.
Try the free version first, before jumping into a crack. See if you even like it.
You’ve heard incorrectly, as I use the free version to make videos of my terrible gameplay and I usually export to MP4 using H264.
They’re limited only on Linux.
export it as some QuickTime/mov/whatever and recode it with handbrake.
@millions @piracy I use shotcut for my video editing needs on linux not locked against any pay wall features https://www.shotcut.org/features/
run in a VM/container?
Well, if your AV tells you there is a backdoor in it, don’t open it, I would say. There can be valid reasons for cracks to be flagged, but you can usually check what it does by uploading it to a sandbox or checking the hash on virustotal.
Back when I used cracks often the cracks were small keygens and sometimes a patched main exe/dll, so I could just generate the key in a vm/sandboxed environment and inspect the patched binary, usually they did nothing weird. Huge repacks are often very sketchy though… Nowadays there are many great FOSS alternatives so I tend to use them more.
deleted by creator
A crack changes program code and is executed. There is no easy way to check if it is safe.
Unless you inspect the source code or binary code (directly or through reverse-engineering) you can not verify it.
What’s left without that is attempts at gaining confidence through analysis trust of third parties - the providers, distributors, creators - who have to be confirmed beyond a matching text label too.
The alternative to or extension of being confidently safe or accepting the risk is to sandbox the execution. Run the crack in a restricted environment with limited access in case it does things you do not want to. Optionally monitoring what it does. Which has to be put into relation of what the program does without the crack.
deleted by creator
first visual inspection: is there any rash or poop or anything nasty in there? then sniff.
