[divyanshu14]

Are you even trying? The person probably isn't even here anymore, but it's a rather egregious insult to the intelligence of anyone who's been on the internet longer than a year to think that someone would fall for this. On a tech-focused forum, no less.

So we should not use these? If not what would be ideal silent miners you recommend buddy

What's with the condescending tone? I'm simply saying that there's a ton of red flags that you can clearly see in the given links. So much so that you'd be hard pressed to call them false positives. You don't need to know a better alternative to feel like something's hella fishy.

If you're such a badass that knows what they're doing, then download it and see for yourself.

sorry mate no offence but as much as I know most miners get a lot of flags until you get a good crypter to make them fud, so I was just asking whether you found something wrong with using these

[Mom]

So we should not use these? If not what would be ideal silent miners you recommend buddy

What's with the condescending tone? I'm simply saying that there's a ton of red flags that you can clearly see in the given links. So much so that you'd be hard pressed to call them false positives. You don't need to know a better alternative to feel like something's hella fishy.

If you're such a badass that knows what they're doing, then download it and see for yourself.

sorry mate no offence but as much as I know most miners get a lot of flags until you get a good crypter to make them fud, so I was just asking whether you found something wrong with using these

My bad, I took it as an attack. Anyways, I'm familiar with false positives and how legitimate programs can set them off. That said, false positives tend to be more vague in their inability to properly identify a program beyond just being malicious. That's not even mentioning that it shouldn't set off SO MANY scans, most of which all are accusing it of being a Trojan.

I already don't download anything that's identified as a Trojan to begin with for safety. Removing my paranoia, this is still pretty fishy.

[divyanshu14]

What's with the condescending tone? I'm simply saying that there's a ton of red flags that you can clearly see in the given links. So much so that you'd be hard pressed to call them false positives. You don't need to know a better alternative to feel like something's hella fishy.

If you're such a badass that knows what they're doing, then download it and see for yourself.

sorry mate no offence but as much as I know most miners get a lot of flags until you get a good crypter to make them fud, so I was just asking whether you found something wrong with using these

My bad, I took it as an attack. Anyways, I'm familiar with false positives and how legitimate programs can set them off. That said, false positives tend to be more vague in their inability to properly identify a program beyond just being malicious. That's not even mentioning that it shouldn't set off SO MANY scans, most of which all are accusing it of being a Trojan.

I already don't download anything that's identified as a Trojan to begin with for safety. Removing my paranoia, this is still pretty fishy.

Yeah, now I got myself a RAT instead, i think it's much better than using silent miners. Any opinions man whether RAT is better or silent miner