[ConcernedCitizen]

This may seem overkill but there are many instances I've seen where new users will post randomly across the board to pass the limit and then post infected links and warez, e-books, etc. I know this is a common event and I can't post links to threads because I'd be endangering users. I report all of those types of threads but it requires sandboxing and actually analyzing each file. I just hope, by the time infection is discovered, they (mods, who already have massive jobs as it is) remove links before too many people fall for these scams.

Recently, a user and I went through a software package and discovered it was infected with a new and old variant of a stub from a virus called Neshti that is previously used in keylogging software, marketed as a common tool that most people here in the Open Bullet community use frequently, sometimes daily. After personally analyzing one of these occurrences I discovered it not only is a fully functional and pleasant looking program UI, but it also makes call-outs to two separate (now identified as C&C (command and control) servers every 3 seconds. It just goes to show you how far people with ill intent can be willing to go for infecting legitimate users. Some of them are just here to learn and while I know it isn't the responsibility of the moderation team or the admin to view every uploaded file for malware and spyware (seriously, sandbox everything even by reputable users), this whole process can be avoided by limiting the ability of users to post links or threads without reaching 100 posts. This means a user would probably have been here for at least a few days or a week, and will have familiarity with how the site works before they can advertise or share programs and other goodies. It is appreciated to see so many people (legitimate users) wanting to help others learn and grow their skill sets. But it is extremely important to nip this in the bud by limiting posts by new users until they've reached a much higher limit than 5 posts to post threads with their own material and links.

[Oni]

There's plenty of reasons someone would want to share links. YouTube videos, sharing images, citing articles, etc... Unfortunately 100 posts is too steep of a requirement for the average member, which is why we ended up at the lower number of 15 (not dissimilar from other forums).

[mothered]

there are many instances I've seen where new users will post randomly across the board to pass the limit and then post infected links

It will still be the case, regardless of the minimum post requirement suggested above.

It'll just take a little more time for the user to spread his/her Infected link.

[ConcernedCitizen]

there are many instances I've seen where new users will post randomly across the board to pass the limit and then post infected links

It will still be the case, regardless of the minimum post requirement suggested above.

It'll just take a little more time for the user to spread his/her Infected link.

Assuming that, if user a is uploading infected things or giving out infected links (e.g., cookie stealers, remote administration tools (RAT) AND user b is sandboxing as recommended; user a will be caught eventually. To be clear, this isn't a suggestion to limit the average user from being infected, and we can't possibly scan every file on the forum for malicious activity. It's to prolong the ability of user a to infect users by having them wait longer to post threads and link in replies.

If anybody has any idea other than post limiting, I'm cool with that, I'm just throwing out ideas to keep user b - a legitimate user that doesn't just join to spread malware in their first thread (I can find examples from the past few weeks - safer longer.

[mothered]

To be clear, this isn't a suggestion to limit the average user from being infected, and we can't possibly scan every file on the forum for malicious activity. It's to prolong the ability of user a to infect users by having them wait longer to post threads and link in replies.

I understand your suggestion and It's certainly appreciated.

Due to the waiting time, It will deter some users from Intending to contribute malicious links - that's a given. But my point Is, at the end of the day, minimum post requirements will not stop users who're dedicated and determined to Infect others.

[ConcernedCitizen]

To be clear, this isn't a suggestion to limit the average user from being infected, and we can't possibly scan every file on the forum for malicious activity. It's to prolong the ability of user a to infect users by having them wait longer to post threads and link in replies.

I understand your suggestion and It's certainly appreciated.

Due to the waiting time, It will deter some users from Intending to contribute malicious links - that's a given. But my point Is, at the end of the day, minimum post requirements will not stop users who're dedicated and determined to Infect others.

Prolonging is still better, that's just how I feel. But I don't think @Oni is going for that because it might be seen as a step toward closed registration and I respect that decision. But, at least I voiced my opinion and that's all I can do. Decisions made either way won't make me upset, as I don't have a say in anything in an official capacity.

[mothered]

Prolonging is still better

Absolutely.

Some form of deterrent Is better than nothing at all.