4 ms·
I know the authorities need to err on the side of caution, but it's quite astonishing to me that someone at the authority didn't just say 'It's WinRAR...' and l
by breakfastduck 6y ago
I know the authorities need to err on the side of caution, but it's quite astonishing to me that someone at the authority didn't just say 'It's WinRAR...' and let it slide.
It's got to be one of the most well known tools in the entire windows ecosystem.
- ecdavis 6y agoBuild servers being compromised and used to inject malware into trusted, signed binaries is a thing that happens. Being one of the most well known tools in the entire Windows ecosystem makes WinRAR a particularly juicy target for trying to pull that off.
- LorenPechtel 6y agoIf it were just the file not being clean on Virustotal I would fully agree. Heuristic detection will result in false positives. However, if they had an actual example of malware signed by that key that would indicate a compromise and that would justify pulling it. The absence of the offending file is suspicious, though.
- breakfastduck 6y agoYep, it would certainly justify pulling it, but quite bizarre that they're then refusing to issue another certification - I'm sure the WinRAR team would be able to prove they're the genuine developers.
- luckylion 6y agoIf they had an example, they would've never deleted it though. I mean, that part is so unprofessional, it's rude to believe are that incompetent, the polite explanation is that they lied about it.
- wnevets 6y agoThis CA sounds kinda incompetent. Even if you ignore the fact who winrar is, just the nature of the tool itself makes its silly to use virustotal as the gatekeeper.