Hello,
All of the binaries except microsoft .netcore framework dlls are unsigned, but I'm planning buy a digital signature.
BTW, it works well on Windows Server 2016(x64)
X-Sec Malware Scanner
- Thread starter xywcloud
- Start date
All of the binaries except microsoft .netcore framework dlls are unsigned, but I'm planning buy a digital signature.
BTW, it works well on Windows Server 2016(x64)
@xywcloud
You’ve stated that the software is open source — I’d like to review the code.
Could you please share the GitHub repository that contains the actual source code (not just a release notes .md file)?
i don't find it.
Also, you can also provide a digitally signed archive (e.g., GPG) before purchasing a commercial certificate?
in the purpose of trust.
Also, just to clarify:
Windows Server 2016 is no longer receiving security updates from Microsoft as of October 2023
Hello, I didn't state this software is open source
Wait — your software isn’t open source after all ?
Also, you’ve had no digital signature on at least 3 DLLs since October 7, 2021.
and today you’re saying:
Why is there a folder named Rame, containing a .json file tied to Beijing Rising Network Security Technology Co., Ltd?
Why is there another folder called xav, with no signed files inside?
It’s been 4 and a half years, Developer.
For your information — and I assume you're fully aware — DLLs can:
So yes, it’s no surprise that many security products are flagging your software.
Additionally, I found another unsigned native DLL, not part of the .NET Framework:
I know sqlite is a database engine — but even then, you should sign this DLL yourself if you’re redistributing it.
And finally — one last point:
I reviewed your license agreement on your site:
It literally states:
️That clause alone would disqualify any professional-grade security product.
No signing, no source, no accountability — yet claiming to offer malware protection?
Also, you’ve had no digital signature on at least 3 DLLs since October 7, 2021.
I’ve counted a total of 10 files in the archive… and that’s just on the surface.
and today you’re saying:
Why is there a folder named Rame, containing a .json file tied to Beijing Rising Network Security Technology Co., Ltd? Why is there another folder called xav, with no signed files inside?It’s been 4 and a half years, Developer.
For your information — and I assume you're fully aware — DLLs can:
- Inject code into memory
- Hook sensitive Windows APIs
- Interact with drivers and/or protected handles
So yes, it’s no surprise that many security products are flagging your software.
Additionally, I found another unsigned native DLL, not part of the .NET Framework:
I know sqlite is a database engine — but even then, you should sign this DLL yourself if you’re redistributing it.
And finally — one last point:
I reviewed your license agreement on your site:
It literally states:
️That clause alone would disqualify any professional-grade security product.No signing, no source, no accountability — yet claiming to offer malware protection?
Thanks, it's working for me too now.
Which software did u develop, spy shelter?Wait — your software isn’t open source after all ?
Also, you’ve had no digital signature on at least 3 DLLs since October 7, 2021.
I’ve counted a total of 10 files in the archive… and that’s just on the surface.
and today you’re saying:
It’s been 4 and a half years, Developer.
For your information — and I assume you're fully aware — DLLs can:
- Inject code into memory
- Hook sensitive Windows APIs
- Interact with drivers and/or protected handles
So yes, it’s no surprise that many security products are flagging your software.
Additionally, I found another unsigned native DLL, not part of the .NET Framework:
I know sqlite is a database engine — but even then, you should sign this DLL yourself if you’re redistributing it.
And finally — one last point:
I reviewed your license agreement on your site:
It literally states:
No signing, no source, no accountability — yet claiming to offer malware protection?
hey user 113745, for your concern, i am not a Dev, but a forensic watchdog, So... mind if I return you the question?
Forensic Watchdog? More like a sassy chihuahua. The only thing I see is you questioning every dev on MT.
Similar disclaimers are provided by pretty much all Gen Digital brands (despite the running Virus Protection Promise) as well as McAfee and many others. If it’s not in the EULA, it’s clearly stated somewhere on the website that no can prevent all cybercrime and identity theft.
When you purchase a video editing software or Microsoft Office, nobody guarantees that you will get hollywood-style results, professional presentations and the software will cover ALL of your needs, 100% of the time.
Companies maintain the software as-is, unless additional clauses (such as the Gen Digital brands Virus Protection Promise) are specified. F-Secure, Trend Micro, Bitdefender and so on would also assume 0 responsibility for any damage as a result of undetected malware. At most, they will refer you to paid-for malware removal service.
In regards to the digital signatures, you probably don’t know how hard is it being a sole developer (one-man-show style). The quality of the software and the revenue don’t always allow you to cover “bells and whistles” like digital signature.
If you or anyone else have any concerns about using this software, you are free to NOT use it.
I’d pass on this one, there are enough malware scanners out there, but we must be objective.
And to answer your question about the Beijing Rising Technologies file, you just had to look at the website.
Last edited:
That’s how the truth is found, user 59691.Forensic Watchdog? More like a sassy chihuahua. The only thing I see is you questioning every dev on MT.
And those answers can become legal evidence in court —
if I follow the right path.
If I go outside of it, it becomes illegal.
So I stick to the process — to protect myself, and the law that backs me.
But if I have doubts... and I’m authorized to seek answers differently,
don't worry — I’ll dig deeper.
Like a real mastiff hunting down his buried bones.
I understand your point,
But there’s a difference between limiting liability and publishing unsigned binaries with no transparency or accountability whatsoever.
Digital signatures aren’t “bells and whistles” — they’re a baseline trust signal, especially when distributing security tools.
If someone wants to be taken seriously in this space, a minimal level of due diligence is expected.
Also, questioning something doesn’t mean rejecting it — it means evaluating it.
That’s the difference between blind trust and responsible use.
and again, if you ask me to not test those kind of suspicious threads, i am simply not doing my work correctly.
ps : please also i ask you kindly to check the file i joined to every one,
Already suggested this in another thread, and I got only some convoluted response.
Trolls are everywhere these days.
Furthermore, this is a free software. By using this software, even without EULA and disclaimers, there is no deal, no contract between the user and developer (which furthermore doesn’t appear to be a registered business either). The developer has 0 responsibility and accountability anyway, unless the software causes physical injury or death (which can’t really happen). Not sure what responsibility and accountability @Fan-of-spyshelter expects.Already suggested this in another thread, and I got only some convoluted response.
Trolls are everywhere these days.
I am not familiar with this program, but i am less concerned about which country it phones too as u seemed to be concerned with, i mean some countries are *arguably* aiding and abating genocide and hunger in the middle east now and many of our software may phone home to these countries. My main concern though was the developer's response that to me seemed dismissive of ppl saying the application was not working on the basis that it was working for him...and that it had to do with the clock system. at least that's the way i interpreted the developer's response.
Also I have seen many apps that have sometimes failed to have signed dlls/etc/ like even zen browser for a while...i just feel like ur arguments could be applied to many software out there that's arguably fine. just because other security products flag it or where it phones home too isn't a reason to dismiss it is my point.
Furthermore, this is a free software. By using this software, even without EULA and disclaimers, there is no deal, no contract between the user and developer (which furthermore doesn’t appear to be a registered business either). The developer has 0 responsibility and accountability anyway, unless the software causes physical injury or death (which can’t really happen). Not sure what responsibility and accountability @Fan-of-spyshelter expects.
Nothing more to say than this:
Avast (2024) — Fined $16.5 million for secretly harvesting and selling users’ browsing data via its free antivirus, despite advertising “privacy protection.”
TRENDnet (2014) — Marketed its IP cameras as “secure.” The FTC forced them to fix major vulnerabilities and implement a real security program.
Sears (2009) — Installed tracking software without clear consent, violating user trust. Ordered to delete all collected data and change their practices.
WinFixer (2008) — Hit with $163 million in penalties for fake alerts pressuring users into upgrades. Classic scareware.And yes — all of these were FREE security software at the basis.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Just to clarify — I’m not ignoring your points. My posts are currently under moderation, so responses may appear delayed.
I understand your position on where software “phones home.” But for me, it's not about pointing fingers at nations — it's about understanding how trust is managed in the digital age.
War doesn’t start on the streets anymore — it starts online.
Our money no longer moves in bags, but in encrypted streams. And when money flows digitally first, oversight must start digitally too.
That's why watchers like us need to look beyond what’s “commonly accepted.”
Not because it’s trendy — but because it’s necessary.
And as for unsigned DLLs, yes — sometimes they happen. But when a product presents itself as a security solution, transparency isn't optional. It's part of the trust contract, signed or not.
Last edited:
The Avast case went on for years. The company was a registered business with a valid certificate of incorporation and director, and the data selling practices were performed by a legally-registered division. It took years to detect the practices and they were fined 16.5 million, when they cashed out generous billions.
Trendnet and Sears cases are similar.
Whilst the EU GDPR includes additional provisions where persons can be held liable for breach of the GDPR, not being a legitimate business means that you don’t have data controller body, data processing guidelines… you didn’t sign anything, it’s not known where the data goes and what jurisdiction it falls under.
Yes, typically a breach of a law could eventually get even a sole developer in trouble, but incorrect malware detection (as long as some detection is offered) is not a breach of the law, the software is fit for its purpose. The developers have integrated the necessary code to detect malware, the rest comes down to the nature of business and cybercrime.
Now the WinFixer, presumably by a company back in the days called WinSoftware, with suspicion that ex-Symantec employee James Reno was involved in the scheme, that was a serious crime and a totally different type.
The rogue AV software made billions between 2007 and 2011-2012 whilst it was prolific.
Last edited:
The Avast case went on for years. The company was a registered business with a valid certificate of incorporation and director, and the data selling practices were performed by a legally-registered division. It took years to detect the practices and they were fined 16.5 million, when they cashed out generous billions.
Trendnet and Sears cases are similar.
Whilst the EU GDPR includes additional provisions where persons can be held liable for breach of the GDPR, not being a legitimate business means that you don’t have data controller body, data processing guidelines… you didn’t sign anything, it’s not known where the data goes and what jurisdiction it falls under.
Yes, typically a breach of a law could eventually get even a sole developer in trouble, but incorrect malware detection (as long as some detection is offered) is not a breach of the law, the software is fit for its purpose. The developers have integrated the necessary code to detect malware, the rest comes down to the nature of business and cybercrime.
Now the WinFixer, presumably by a company back in the days called WinSoftware, with suspicion that ex-Symantec employee James Reno was involved in the scheme, that was a serious crime and a totally different type.
The rogue AV software made billions between 2007 and 2011-2012 whilst it was prolific.
Thanks for the breakdown — though I believe we’re looking at the same picture from two very different angles. Your answer doesn’t come across as neutral.
Why?
Whether a company is registered or not doesn’t change the fact that it distributes a security tool that includes:
- Unsigned binaries (including one with sleeper behavior)
- Sandbox evasion (why can’t it run properly on a VM?)
- Detection by 11 AVs (including Centy AV — a serious red flag)
- Dismissive responses to technical crash reports (from multiple users here)
Intentions don’t shield bad practices in cybersecurity. Transparency does.
Case closed for me.
P.S. Truth-seekers are always welcome — whether in the open or behind the curtain. but I read every message with evidence only.
Ok, but again, this is an app that users voluntarily install on their machines. Neither it comes bundled with popular software, nor is it advertised, pre-installed and so on. The software is clearly one step above a hobby project, nobody is forcing anyone to download and use it.
VirusTotal - SpyVPN: The Google-Featured VPN That Secretly Captures Your Screen | Koi Blog
While we use NPE, Emsisoft, Malwarebytes, KRT, etc., only x-sec with Rising detects the compromised VPN extension. Just an interesting case.
You may also like...
-
🔄 Multron Win Cleaner – Free & Open Source Windows Cleaner- Started by winball501
- Replies: 55
-
-
Deep Research: McAfee GTI, JTI, Artemis and Other Technologies Explained- Started by Trident
- Replies: 2
-
