The VideoLAN Forums

Check which signature ? we do not provide internal exe signatures. Did you even read the point wise scenario that was laid out to aid your understanding? It was broken into short sentences and points so as to not confuse your limited comprehension skills. Maybe the person who gave you a pass mark o...

By the time the user runs the unchecked vlc.exe, it's already too late to check anything. I don't know why it is so confusing for you - The application is not supposed to check itself : At execution, the binary is supposed to check the DLLs it is loading. And NO - it is never too late to 'check for...

I think after the first few messages, the dev-team has forgotten that a non-state/state sponsored entity is at play. No one said that the infection was coming with the installer, but rather, given the architecture, if the Installation is infected, no one has a mechanism to check and confirm leading ...

I am reading this post as a one level progress from your early stance - and it seems you are acknowledging that if the whitelisting process is enabled for the binary, then you have solved one set of problem, although the issue of unofficial binaries, and of users unwilling to do the signature check ...

Do you understand English? I wonder because I never said that this was a patched VLC. That was for your metaphorical car modified by linking its ignition to the bomb. I think you find your own analogies quite difficult to follow. Maybe you should not do analogies going forward if your own end up co...

Big talk and nothing to show for it. All your technical argumentd were destroyed. Show us the code and the performance metrics, or this is just political support for the Indian government. That was some scope creep - Starting from "No they used a patched VLC" to "They used a unmodifi...

I think it is very easy to blame everyone else like the OS does not do its job effectively, the users do not know what risks they run, users are too incompetent to know whether a malicious DLL has been placed somewhere in their folders, taxes are too high, etc. Until you ask yourself the question : ...

So the TLDR version is that VideoLan does not want to fix it because: (1) it requires considerable engineering, (2) nobody wants to pay for it, (3) any fix that you provide would likely be worked around by third parties. As a third party, I would have assumed that keeping a centrally maintained data...

To be crystal clear : All everyone is asking is that when VLC/Videolan scans for, and loads modules from the folders, VLC app should check and verify that it is not malicious, before it actually runs the unknown code. If one goes by your logic, one could argue that the default Windows OS that comes ...

And FWIW, the metaphorical car bomb is triggered by the car ignition, so the car is very much involved. Also the official VLC releases don't pick up DLLs from random places (that bug was fixed almost two decades ago), nor do they come with trojan DLL builtins. If you have a problem with unofficial ...

More like if somebody planted a bomb under your wife or husband's car, and you'd blame it on the car manufacturer. Or you bought a car from a drug dealer instead of a brand store of the car manufacturer, and complained that the car was not what you expected. Again - it is incorrect analogy - either...

If I sabotage your car, are you going to complain to the car maker, explaining it allows many people to touch it ? That is not the correct analogy. The correct analogy would be, if a car picks up a Gatlin gun lying in the garage and starts firing, would you ask the manufacturer why the car picked s...