Refining Simulator

joakim87878
joakim87878 Posts: 9 Arc User
edited March 2011 in General Discussion
Removed, reason:

"Sorry Joakim, but there is too much risk in having outside download links on our forums."

seriously, what was the risk?

http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=3f7db70515d806064a614800a9b719c674e2139ce5d001b2198e6146a879b649-1290804575

the file was compressed and virus total shows its clean, geez.
just becouse some morons says its spyware before even checking, you ruined this one

Oh well..
Post edited by joakim87878 on

Comments

  • Escorian - Dreamweaver
    Escorian - Dreamweaver Posts: 2,802 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    no ty i dont wanna download a virus or a spyware.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ty Nowitsawn

    Everything has its beginnings, but it doesn't start at one. It starts long before that... The world is born From zero. The moment zero becomes one is the moment the world springs to life. One becomes 2. 2 becomes 10. 10 becomes 100. taking it all back to one solves nothing. so long as zero remains... One.. Will eventually grow to 100 again.
  • joakim87878
    joakim87878 Posts: 9 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Escorian - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    no ty i dont wanna download a virus or a spyware.

    Its clean you moron:
    http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=3f7db70515d806064a614800a9b719c674e2139ce5d001b2198e6146a879b649-1290804575
  • NonameWiz - Sanctuary
    NonameWiz - Sanctuary Posts: 506 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Better safe than sorry.

    ijs
    Rank 8 Wizard: 1% farm b:shutup
  • WarrenWolfy - Sanctuary
    WarrenWolfy - Sanctuary Posts: 1,686 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Looks pretty accurate:

    I failed 7 in-a-row on my very first +1 refine attempts. So, yeah, I can confirm from experience it feels just like the real thing... b:chuckle

    - EDIT -

    Actually, to make it feel even more authentic there should be a whole bunch of drop-down menus that allow you to select time of day, refine location, amount of people nearby, grade of item, attempt of the day, etc...

    None of them would have any effect, but people could select the ones they feel good about.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    PWI Merchanting Guides: warrenwolfy.wordpress.com
  • Eden - Raging Tide
    Eden - Raging Tide Posts: 301 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    joakim87878 wrote: »
    Its clean you moron:
    http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=3f7db70515d806064a614800a9b719c674e2139ce5d001b2198e6146a879b649-1290804575
    owned

    this almost feels like anni pack simulator xD
  • Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973
    Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973 Posts: 7,881 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    It doesn't work on my phone. Why not make an online version? :)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Refining Simulator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/refiningsimulator.html (don't use IE)
    Genie Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/geniecalculator.html - (don't use IE)
    Socket Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/socketcalculator.html
  • sangodoc
    sangodoc Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    joakim87878 wrote: »
    Its clean you moron:
    http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=3f7db70515d806064a614800a9b719c674e2139ce5d001b2198e6146a879b649-1290804575
    No offense, but that only detects known viruses, worms, trojans, and spyware. Make a totally new virus/trojan/whatever and it will also show that the file isn't infected.

    If you don't want to try that, there's a Zoho Sheet to help you figure out optimal refining costs.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Visit the PWI wiki for the useful information. Stay at the PWI wiki for the pie. ;-)
  • Escorian - Dreamweaver
    Escorian - Dreamweaver Posts: 2,802 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    joakim87878 wrote: »
    Its clean you moron:
    http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=3f7db70515d806064a614800a9b719c674e2139ce5d001b2198e6146a879b649-1290804575
    Eden - Raging Tide wrote: »
    owned

    this almost feels like anni pack simulator xD

    your right you guys were owned.
    Sangodoc wrote: »
    No offense, but that only detects known viruses, worms, trojans, and spyware. Make a totally new virus/trojan/whatever and it will also show that the file isn't infected.

    If you don't want to try that, there's a Zoho Sheet to help you figure out optimal refining costs.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ty Nowitsawn

    Everything has its beginnings, but it doesn't start at one. It starts long before that... The world is born From zero. The moment zero becomes one is the moment the world springs to life. One becomes 2. 2 becomes 10. 10 becomes 100. taking it all back to one solves nothing. so long as zero remains... One.. Will eventually grow to 100 again.
  • Bearleeable - Lost City
    Bearleeable - Lost City Posts: 445 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    appears clean and run's with alarms.
    Would be very nice of text was in English and worded for pwi
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Tremblewith - Heavens Tear
    Tremblewith - Heavens Tear Posts: 1,558 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Escorian - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    your right you guys were owned.

    Erm, what? The OP's file container is .rar (compressed file format). It is impossible to get a virus from a .rar file until uncompressed. Logically, anyone who downloads anything should have up to date antivirus software and/or up to date anti malware/spyware/adware software. A scan of one small .rar file takes, what.. 10 seconds? Only an idiot would claim to get a virus from a compressed file container format, without first uncompressing the file and not scanning the container.

    Anyways, guess what I'm saying is your either and idiot, or trolling. You pick.

    Nice software by the way, as it accurately calculates what I normally have in terms of luck w/ refining. Nice download, and nice work mate. :)
  • sangodoc
    sangodoc Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Tremblewith - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    Erm, what? The OP's file container is .rar (compressed file format). It is impossible to get a virus from a .rar file until uncompressed. Logically, anyone who downloads anything should have up to date antivirus software and/or up to date anti malware/spyware/adware software. A scan of one small .rar file takes, what.. 10 seconds? Only an idiot would claim to get a virus from a compressed file container format, without first uncompressing the file and not scanning the container.

    Anyways, guess what I'm saying is your either and idiot, or trolling. You pick.
    You jumped to some erroneous conclusions, and thus missed his point.

    The fact that it's a RAR file is irrelevant. What those scanners do is scan the decompressed contents of any compressed file; so it is as if they scanned the uncompressed files themselves. You do not have to scan a RAR file, unrar the contents, and then scan those contents, as that would be totally redundant. The compressed RAR itself (the container) does not need to be scanned because, barring it being a self-unpacking RAR file, it should not be possible to get infected simply by opening or unraring the contents of a RAR file. Escorian never claimed that the RAR file itself was capable of infecting people, he was talking about the contents of the RAR file.

    His point is that they got "owned" for assuming that just because a file scanned clean, that it means that it is clean. That's a poor assumption, because scanners only look for known malware. If someone had, for example, embedded some new keylogger in that executable, perhaps one made specifically for PWI, the anti-malware sites would still call it clean because they had never encountered it yet.

    This is why I recommended caution if one was considering running this application.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Visit the PWI wiki for the useful information. Stay at the PWI wiki for the pie. ;-)
  • DaKillanator - Raging Tide
    DaKillanator - Raging Tide Posts: 2,965 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Man Sangodoc, you've been pretty active on the forums for the past couple days.

    whether I agree with everything you post is irrelevant, it's simply nice to see a mod taking part in the forums.
  • sangodoc
    sangodoc Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    DaKillanator - Raging Tide wrote: »
    Man Sangodoc, you've been pretty active on the forums for the past couple days.

    whether I agree with everything you post is irrelevant, it's simply nice to see a mod taking part in the forums.
    Yeah, thanks. I've been trying to keep up with the new information from the expansion so I can move it over to the wiki.

    Kind of sucks, because I want to play my mystic more, but I'm trying not to think only of myself.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Visit the PWI wiki for the useful information. Stay at the PWI wiki for the pie. ;-)
  • Eden - Raging Tide
    Eden - Raging Tide Posts: 301 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Escorian - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    your right you guys were owned.
    nope looks like..
    Tremblewith - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    Anyways, guess what I'm saying is your either and idiot, or trolling. You pick.
    the answer is both xD
    Sangodoc wrote: »
    You jumped to some erroneous conclusions, and thus missed his point.

    The fact that it's a RAR file is irrelevant. What those scanners do is scan the decompressed contents of any compressed file; so it is as if they scanned the uncompressed files themselves. You do not have to scan a RAR file, unrar the contents, and then scan those contents, as that would be totally redundant. The compressed RAR itself (the container) does not need to be scanned because, barring it being a self-unpacking RAR file, it should not be possible to get infected simply by opening or unraring the contents of a RAR file. Escorian never claimed that the RAR file itself was capable of infecting people, he was talking about the contents of the RAR file.

    His point is that they got "owned" for assuming that just because a file scanned clean, that it means that it is clean. That's a poor assumption, because scanners only look for known malware. If someone had, for example, embedded some new keylogger in that executable, perhaps one made specifically for PWI, the anti-malware sites would still call it clean because they had never encountered it yet.

    This is why I recommended caution if one was considering running this application.
    if thats the case then the link u gave has the possibility to be infected with server side virus that could, say, exploit a certain operating system and upload a keylogger without consent.... that one can get by visiting the website.. i guess it depends on how much u embellish the potential danger of something

    virustotal is an extremely good site at detecting viruses ive used them for years now to double check what my own av detects

    i also scanned the op program and it was clean...

    paranoia for no reason, and no surprise escorian making stupid posts
  • Escorian - Dreamweaver
    Escorian - Dreamweaver Posts: 2,802 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Eden - Raging Tide wrote: »
    nope looks like..


    the answer is both xD


    if thats the case then the link u gave has the possibility to be infected with server side virus that could, say, exploit a certain operating system and upload a keylogger without consent.... that one can get by visiting the website.. i guess it depends on how much u embellish the potential danger of something

    virustotal is an extremely good site at detecting viruses ive used them for years now to double check what my own av detects

    i also scanned the op program and it was clean...

    paranoia for no reason, and no surprise escorian making stupid posts

    gotta love how much you post about me and tbh you basically said the mod is gonna give us a virus and your calling me stupid? god get smart. i would rather trust a forum mod then some random person posting on a ? alt.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ty Nowitsawn

    Everything has its beginnings, but it doesn't start at one. It starts long before that... The world is born From zero. The moment zero becomes one is the moment the world springs to life. One becomes 2. 2 becomes 10. 10 becomes 100. taking it all back to one solves nothing. so long as zero remains... One.. Will eventually grow to 100 again.
  • Eden - Raging Tide
    Eden - Raging Tide Posts: 301 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Escorian - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    gotta love how much you post about me and tbh you basically said the mod is gonna give us a virus and your calling me stupid? god get smart. i would rather trust a forum mod then some random person posting on a ? alt.
    as we all know mods are prophets who we should all worship and trust completely

    even when a popular tech magazine gives props to virus total

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/131935-14/the_100_best_products_of_2007.html

    and several ppl in this topic confirmed it was clean

    the best u can come up with is falsely that im saying a mod is gonna give us a virus? back to pro reading skills again i see xD
  • Wunderkind - Dreamweaver
    Wunderkind - Dreamweaver Posts: 315 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Who really cares with all the banter and cross talk, if it was confirmed by someone that it was clean....all of you can shut it that's all that matters.....
    Currently: pwcalc.com/b4c92dacf1da8c21
  • Eden - Raging Tide
    Eden - Raging Tide Posts: 301 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Wunderkind - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    Who really cares with all the banter and cross talk, if it was confirmed by someone that it was clean....all of you can shut it that's all that matters.....
    mmhm b:surrender
  • sangodoc
    sangodoc Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Eden - Raging Tide wrote: »
    if thats the case then the link u gave has the possibility to be infected with server side virus that could, say, exploit a certain operating system and upload a keylogger without consent.... that one can get by visiting the website.. i guess it depends on how much u embellish the potential danger of something
    Yeah, for example, I don't have to embellish at all to explain how any programmer with the least bit of skill can easily create a new keylogger that would go undetected by malware scanning programs, while you have to embellish tons in order to try to claim that an established website is somehow using some extremely powerful and as yet unknown/unpatched exploit in the browser/OS.

    Seriously, you're comparing apples to oranges there in terms of relative safety.
    Eden - Raging Tide wrote: »
    virustotal is an extremely good site at detecting viruses ive used them for years now to double check what my own av detects

    i also scanned the op program and it was clean...
    Big whoop-de-do. I can whip up a program in an hour or three that will look like a useful program, but will also install a keylogger to send me your passwords, and it will scan as totally clean by both virustotal and any other anti-malware program you care to scan it with. Do you know why? Because they only recognize known malware, as I stated previously.
    Eden - Raging Tide wrote: »
    paranoia for no reason, and no surprise escorian making stupid posts
    That's not paranoia for no reason, that's reasonable paranoia because I know what I'm talking about. So perhaps you should be watching where you're throwing those stones regarding post quality.
    Wunderkind - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    Who really cares with all the banter and cross talk, if it was confirmed by someone that it was clean....all of you can shut it that's all that matters.....
    Actually, no it was never "confirmed" as such. Just because someone didn't notice any malicious activity (yet), doesn't mean that there wasn't/will not be any.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Visit the PWI wiki for the useful information. Stay at the PWI wiki for the pie. ;-)
  • Wunderkind - Dreamweaver
    Wunderkind - Dreamweaver Posts: 315 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Sangodoc wrote: »
    Yeah, for example, I don't have to embellish at all to explain how any programmer with the least bit of skill can easily create a new keylogger that would go undetected by malware scanning programs, while you have to embellish tons in order to try to claim that an established website is somehow using some extremely powerful and as yet unknown/unpatched exploit in the browser/OS.

    Seriously, you're comparing apples to oranges there in terms of relative safety.


    Big whoop-de-do. I can whip up a program in an hour or three that will look like a useful program, but will also install a keylogger to send me your passwords, and it will scan as totally clean by both virustotal and any other anti-malware program you care to scan it with. Do you know why? Because they only recognize known malware, as I stated previously.


    That's not paranoia for no reason, that's reasonable paranoia because I know what I'm talking about. So perhaps you should be watching where you're throwing those stones regarding post quality.


    Actually, no it was never "confirmed" as such. Just because someone didn't notice any malicious activity (yet), doesn't mean that there wasn't/will not be any.

    Stop speculating, if you can't prove that it is malicious stop saying misleading comments about what the OP has posted. It's nearly getting to the point of libel.
    Currently: pwcalc.com/b4c92dacf1da8c21
  • Devoted - Lost City
    Devoted - Lost City Posts: 3,634 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    The ****s the point of a refining simulator?
  • sangodoc
    sangodoc Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Wunderkind - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    Stop speculating, if you can't prove that it is malicious stop saying misleading comments about what the OP has posted. It's nearly getting to the point of libel.
    Advising reasonable caution is not the same as claiming maliciousness. What I'm doing is not even in the same ballpark as libel.

    You might as well be saying, "You can't prove that falling down that hole will injure someone, so stop trying to advise caution to people walking towards the hole!" Personally, I think it would be negligent of me to not advise caution, considering what I know about these things.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Visit the PWI wiki for the useful information. Stay at the PWI wiki for the pie. ;-)
  • Wunderkind - Dreamweaver
    Wunderkind - Dreamweaver Posts: 315 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Sangodoc wrote: »
    Advising reasonable caution is not the same as claiming maliciousness. What I'm doing is not even in the same ballpark as libel.

    You might as well be saying, "You can't prove that falling down that hole will injure someone, so stop trying to advise caution to people walking towards the hole!" Personally, I think it would be negligent of me to not advise caution, considering what I know about these things.

    We are talking about a simulator from a game on a forum that people have already used as the fifth post indicated by warrenwolfy (who made the pack simulator). If you really want to do analogies it's like falling in a hole lined with pillows and a few people have done it, and you're still trying to say it will hurt just give it time and they might finally feel the pain. Honestly done with the discussion about it. Some people have used it...and it's fine....and no one has said otherwise in any aspect...so cheers although i've refined so much stuff I already know how much it sucks. b:laugh
    Currently: pwcalc.com/b4c92dacf1da8c21
  • MageFizban - Lost City
    MageFizban - Lost City Posts: 1,158 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    WarrenWolfy - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Looks pretty accurate:

    I failed 7 in-a-row on my very first +1 refine attempts. So, yeah, I can confirm from experience it feels just like the real thing... b:chuckle

    - EDIT -

    Actually, to make it feel even more authentic there should be a whole bunch of drop-down menus that allow you to select time of day, refine location, amount of people nearby, grade of item, attempt of the day, etc...

    None of them would have any effect, but people could select the ones they feel good about.

    i lol'd.

Categories