Scanned with MB since using the angry planes mod, no issues Not even a folder similar to the guys screenshot

http://www.vg247.com/2015/05/14/gta-5-angry-planes-mod-found-to-contain-malware/ https://www.gta5-mods.com/ I would get rid of it...

I must of been one of the lucky ones that didn't get the infected mods. I do double scan everything though with Nod and MB.

I downloaded it but never got around to opening the rar. I dodged a bullet.

Dealing with malware is always an extreme annoyance, but going through that GTA forum thread about the issue is ... "Interesting". Specially on page 7 and onwards where the first analytical view of the virus is shown to be some random danish dude :3eyes:

I must of been one of the lucky ones that didn't get the infected mods. I do double scan everything though with Nod and MB.

I would change my passwords just in case. This thing could delete itself after it got enough information or through a remote command, just to hide its tracks. I'm only a newbie in malware analysis and socket programming, but these things are very possible. Check your firewall and registry editor like instructed in the thread Angantyr posted.

I must of been one of the lucky ones that didn't get the infected mods. I do double scan everything though with Nod and MB.

Same, absolutely none of the files or reg entries listed on my machine either, removed the mod anyway

Claiming "I'm not infected, because said so" is like saying "I don't have cancer because this doctor I go to says so" who might not have properly checked everything. Since not everybody posts what antimalware they use, you could be infected and just happen to be using the same few programs that can't detect it. People put WAY too much faith in these programs. I have been paid on multiple occasions to uninstall Norton or McAfee on people's PCs because I proved that malware went straight past them undetected. So far just on these forums alone we've already got 2 people using MB claiming they aren't infected. I'm not saying MB is wrong but I'm personally suspicious.

Claiming "I'm not infected, because said so" is like saying "I don't have cancer because this doctor I go to says so" who might not have properly checked everything..

Well considering the doctor is the one who knows what they are talking about, you're pretty much screwed if he says you're fine and you die the next day Pretty poor analogy considering that's who we rely on, if we didn't take the word of the doc ever, what would be the point in having doctors? Might as well just go straight to the hospital, where we could tell them we don't believe them either, then what? And anyway - I scanned not only with MBs, which I agree is pretty poor these days, but also checked manually for the reg entries and exes / processes and none were present Not finding the infection doesn't mean you're infected, it's likely people not infected didn't download the 'infected' mod

Claiming "I'm not infected, because said so" is like saying "I don't have cancer because this doctor I go to says so" who might not have properly checked everything. Since not everybody posts what antimalware they use, you could be infected and just happen to be using the same few programs that can't detect it. People put WAY too much faith in these programs. I have been paid on multiple occasions to uninstall Norton or McAfee on people's PCs because I proved that malware went straight past them undetected. So far just on these forums alone we've already got 2 people using MB claiming they aren't infected. I'm not saying MB is wrong but I'm personally suspicious.

Malware can go straight past everything ever made on any given day that's why reliance on a single program to detect everything is futile.Malware even the same types change almost daily and malware definitions are constantly playing catch up.So picking out Norton and McAfee for missing things when you could substitute just about any names is a little misleading.You can pick on them for being bloated or resource hogs any number of things but just for missing things not so much.

Well considering the doctor is the one who knows what they are talking about, you're pretty much screwed if he says you're fine and you die the next day

Uh... not always. There are countless cases where doctors were wrong, neglectful, or lazy. And do you honestly think dying the next day is an ok option?

Pretty poor analogy considering that's who we rely on, if we didn't take the word of the doc ever, what would be the point in having doctors? Might as well just go straight to the hospital, where we could tell them we don't believe them either, then what?

Actually the fact you think it's a poor analogy is exactly why it's a good analogy. My point is you can't put your faith in the word of just 1 source if you want to ensure you don't have a problem. Early stages of cancer are not obvious to detect, just as a trojan on your PC. If you have some symptoms of a problem and ONE source tells you that you don't have it, are you really going to take the chance and hope they're wrong? Did the source give you a better alternative?

Not finding the infection doesn't mean you're infected

I never said it did. All I'm saying is if you're going to rely on 1 source, you can't confidently say you're problem free. Since you personally confirmed that your registry is clean, you have checked more than 1 source and therefore there's a good chance you are clean.

Malware can go straight past everything ever made on any given day that's why reliance on a single program to detect everything is futile.Malware even the same types change almost daily and malware definitions are constantly playing catch up.So picking out Norton and McAfee for missing things when you could substitute just about any names is a little misleading.You can pick on them for being bloated or resource hogs any number of things but just for missing things not so much.

When you encounter malware several weeks old and the software STILL doesn't detect and remove them, that's unreliable. When you have malware that actually prevents these programs from running in the first place, that's unreliable. The fact that Norton and McAffee pollute your system and consume more system resources than the average virus to me is a good reason to remove them. I personally prefer to be infected than have either of those on my system.

Ok bud

avast and malwarebytes on high sensitivity and no infections for the past 5y, unless i DL the file mmanually, e.g. my fault. Have NOT seen a machine running norton/McAfee that were clean. Even the (pro) edition most shops use (incl staples), said "clean" when malwarebytes/superspyware found 500-2000 infections. Plus, there is anti-keylogger software available (free) that would prevent the need for password change in the first place... But nothing new. People never care to invest time/money before something happens..