I don't see why a dev would do this. It's not their problem if the user installs a dodgy crack. It was the user's choice.

A dev's responsibility is to support the official software, not the cracked software

 

"An honor among thieves" that's what they called it among themself.

Keylogger, malware, TeamViewer etc etc = telemetry, bloatware, Impel Down protection etc etc

the point is, sometimes I wish I just wanted the plugin without all the extra features that come with it. but yahhh who am I to complain, been roaming the sister site since forever

good day to everyone

 

def haved downloaded some phishy plugins here recently, not sure which but installed some plugins from the sister site(quite a few i should add) and my pc was damn near unusable at boot.

 

Except one thing I own everything they got (I'm all legit with audio software anyway) hence I never installed a cracked version and cannot judge the cracks. So you think it isn't true in the first place?
What was concerning to me was that the Teams in question are very well respected and trusted Teams. If that company had evidence at least one of those Teams installs malware it would be quite a big thing to me.
But there's no evidence, instead it's just like you mentioned:

and I think that behavior hurts developers in the long run. It's kind of a scare tactics to leave end users in the shadows, but it's not doing any good for devs. Whereas bringing up clear proof of Teams installing malware would make users think twice about installing cracks.

 

any suspicions what releases might be responsible?

 

This is for sure how some developers think about it. But I don't think it's a healthy mindest to see it that way. Isn't it paradox to tolerate the existence of a malicious crack because of "revenge" and the argument the developer could benefit from it (users "learning their lessons")?

But it's just one aspect and that little question (if or not to expose malware cracks) contains many aspects. One thing I'd be really interested in would be if and what impact it would have on the teams/scene. I mean if a company would publish evidence with hard facts that at least one of the really big teams is installing malware, what would happen? I suspect the team would be dead very soon, but would they simply come back in a different outfit or what overall consequences would it have?

 

Most "slow at boot" are due to background "updaters" loading.
Like those now well known "one global interface for each dev".

Waves want their main interface, NI, Steinberg ... too.
Those loaders/updaters/downloaders ... are a mess.

 

Ahh, the audio software market is like a massive multi-tumor cancer, you have to allow a parasite HUB/downloader & installer app from each dirty little company to attach to the spine of your PC, just to be allowed the privilege of a download link, as if installing a simple exe in windows OS is untenable lol

 

If the OP hasnt noticed, every single software dev will treat R2R and audio wares like a fact they dont like to acknowledge,

In the hundreds and thousands of comments, video advertising, podcasts and talk shows with audio devs and people shackled to the industry - not a single comment or discussion about it either way.

Its like a T-Rex, if you stand still and dont move, it cant see you

 

Good question, but

Smaller teams or single hackers would probably come back under a different name.
And you also answered the last part yourself

 

Ever single piece of audio software that I ever bought for the past 15 years was first downloaded from audioz, tested either for an extended period or enough just time to know it's merit in my workflow and then either bought (never ever ifok or stuff needing to be connected online) it or purged it from my system. In all these years I haven't to my knowledge experienced any malware from any team. Devs don't know how good they have it around here.

 

I never had any issues with anything from the Sister Site regarding malware. BUT if you're downloading from somewhere else you are taking the risks and even R2R told once on their .nfo that exist people that claim to be them. It's not hard to create or modify a file with malware under the flag of a Team. Especially if the team is "trusted".

 

I wouldn't be shocked if this dev said that he has "proof" that teams include various malicious software just because he got a false positive virus alert when he tested a keygen or something. It would be interesting to know if he actually knows anything about the techniques used to circumvent copy protection and license activation etc, or if he is just saying stuff like this because he doesn't know better.

 

disconnected from internet and left on for hours still a studdering mess. uninstalled everything from the past few days and going to slowly reintroduce them to see if ican find the culprit

 

From what I've seen, it's the exact opposite. I've known people who got slapped with decent-sized fines or what amounted to slightly large inconveniences (services revoked, re-application fees, deductions, etc.,) for pyrating all sorts of stuff laying around online, not just audioware, and after getting punished for their misdeeds, end up doubling down because they then feel as if they're owed. It's the digital version of getting out after serving time and feeling that the system owes you for your time-served, so you head back out to make some money by doing some criminal shit to compensate. On the flip side of that, I know a lot of people whose plugin list is slowly becoming more legit, with the unused pyrated plugins getting deleted; sometimes because they actually got a few extra bucks coming in steady, other times because they find that when you use something enough, something that's a quality product that's helping you create, you begin to appreciate it—least some people do.
Now movies... movies are different story...

 

What you're saying there is a VERY crucial point of this subject.
I got reasons for not going too much into detail, but I can tell you those guys got high reputation amongst other devs for what and how they're programming their stuff. Therefore I'm very sure this guy knows his code and isn't some random dude who needs to rely on things like:

Regarding this point:

I'm quoting (partially, to sum it up, original words in "") some things he was stating:
"... giving the crack teams too much credit...", "... there are way easier ways ..." to bypass their copy protection "... and they know it...".
"Instead they spend loads of time and resources to recompile our sourcecode ... because they want you to run a .exe on your computer."
Sounding to me like he knows some things.

Now, that still doesn't proof anything and somebody in this thread, who accidently followed the subject on a different platform, already mentioned the cracks in question are clean.
But bearing in mind those guys are skilled programmers it's somewhat concerning that he was explicit mentioning "crack teams".
.

 

Last edited: Nov 8, 2023

Yes, this "easier way" to crack is what V.R and some others do (not to invalidate their work, I'm very thankful for the work they do as well). It's basically only R2R that creates keygens and emulators AFAIK.

The "because they want to run a .exe on your computer" is complete bs, because you are running .exe's to install the plugins either way. It would be an order of magnitude easier to just package the malware with the plugin itself in a custom installer. The amount of work necessary to reverse-engineer the different copy protections to create emulators and keygens is insane. Why do that when they could infect machines so much easier in so many other ways? It also wouldn't account for the number of iLok releases that have been completely reverse-engineered and recompiled to exclude every single line of protection code. With these releases you don't use any keygen, patching or emulator at all. It's just the barebones code for the plugins without any of the protection layers.

I personally don't think that they do it just to run malicious software on some home studio machines, but I'm ofc biased in this matter.

I'm sure he is an experienced programmer and smart guy, but I'm still questioning his sources and motives.

If he really wanted to make a point, he would release all of the information and "proof" he has that R2R (since it could only be R2R he is talking about) includes malware with their releases, so that others can verify or debunk his claims. He could easily do this completely anonymously, and he doesn't have to use cracked releases of plugins that are made by his own company.

I would also like to know from where he downloaded the releases that he has analyzed. It has happened many times that legit releases from R2R and other teams have been altered by a middle man to include malware, and then released on bogus sites (r2rdownload etc) and/or on less trustworthy torrent sites etc. As most members here should know by now; R2R only share their releases on the sister site through a hand full of trusted releasers. If you would download an R2R release from somewhere else, you don't know if the release has been tampered with in any way.

 

EDIT:

not that important anymore

 

Last edited: Nov 10, 2023