• DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because it makes it the easiest thing to spoof an .exe which enables attacks of which you will never get out of. A legit.exe vs a spoofed legit.exe will be the exact same in every way except the coding in spoofed fucks you.

    Edit: you’re trading security risk for security risk that makes it easier to hide. Not worth it.

    Edit 2: their is nothing 100% secure MD5 and Sha1 are both spoofable. Checksums and anything is capable of being man in the middle. You people act like you just found something that can’t be broken. This is the real world the moment you switch most black hatters and white hatters will switch too…

    • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is this getting upvoted. This is ridiculous garbage, every exe whitelist would obviously have checksums attached, not just a filename.

    • starchturrets@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, WDAC doesn’t usually just look at the filename. It can look at the certificate it was signed by, or fallback to using hashes.

    • CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lmao your edit 2 is completely silly. SHA-256 is what would be used for checksum verification, and SHA-256 is pretty much collision resistant, and even then if two files computed the same hash they would have such different contents/properties that it would be obvious they are not the same file. MD5 and SHA-1 have been phased out for any serious usage for a while now.

      Seriously tho, if you don’t know what you are talking about you should probably stop making a fool of yourself