☰

海角付费视频解锁 został zgłoszony 11-11-2026, bo Szkodliwy kod

Osoba zgłaszająca napisała:

This script is the same product posted again under a new account after the previous one was banned. Please delete it and ban the account.

The name and author were changed, but it is still the same thing: every request still goes to the author's own server https://hjm.j3.ink (source line 716, 'SERVER': 'https://hjm.j3.ink',, and @connect hjm.j3.ink on line 14). The deleted scripts from the banned account hjm443 used this same server (@connect hjm.j3.ink). hjm443 was banned on 2026-11-10 04:13 UTC; this account was registered on 2026-11-11 15:04 UTC and posted this script 35 minutes later, at 15:39 UTC.

海角助手Zbanowany napisał:
Response to the report The report states that this script is the same product previously published by a banned account. I want to address two separate things: the technical role of the author's server, and what has actually changed in this version. 1. The majority of the functionality is implemented in the published code This script is 2,398 lines with 70 functions. The following features are implemented entirely in the code hosted on Sleazy Fork, with no external scripts, no remote code, and no dynamic loading: WASM key unwrapping (jquery_key) Paid image decryption (custom base64 alphabet plus a second decode pass) AES-GCM request encryption with time-sliced key derivation Device fingerprint generation (Canvas / WebGL / AudioContext combined hash) hls.js player takeover and segment decryption Ad DOM cleanup Clipboard write interception Full UI panel and license input dialog There is no eval, no new Function, no injected script element, and nothing is loaded from any address as executable code. Everything can be inspected before installation. 2. The server returns one data field Of the endpoints the script calls, only /api/resolve relates to the unlocking feature. It returns the address of the complete video manifest — a URL string. The remaining endpoints (redeem / heartbeat / status / trial) handle license validation and status queries. This falls under a case the Code Rules explicitly permit: "Scripts that use a third-party API to provide a service for the current page (such as converting data) are allowed." What the rules prohibit is loading most of the script's content from elsewhere, or publishing alternative download links intended to replace the Sleazy Fork version. This script loads no script content. This release also removes @downloadURL and @updateURL entirely, so updates are handled solely by Sleazy Fork. 3. Regarding republishing a removed script This is the part I should not sidestep. I did previously operate another account, and those scripts were removed for rule violations. The report notes that this account uses the same server domain, hjm.j3.ink. That is accurate. But two different things are being conflated: Republishing the same script — prohibited by the rules, and I do not dispute that Publishing a different script that uses the same server endpoint — a server is an API endpoint, not the script itself The current version is rewritten: the code was deobfuscated in full (the previous release was obfuscated, this one is not), the @match scope was narrowed from multi-domain wildcards to two explicit domains, and the external update channel was removed. These are substantive changes addressing the specific reasons for the earlier removals, not a rename-and-repost. 4. If the server itself is the problem If the position is that a script may not depend on a server operated by its author, I need to understand exactly where that line is drawn, because scripts on this site use the same architecture — for example scripts/588095 sends all resolution requests to api.suban.vip and additionally implements its own update check against a private server. I am willing to change the script to comply. If the requirement is that resolution must be fully local, I can do that. But I should be clear about the consequence: the algorithm would become entirely public, which makes any licensing mechanism unenforceable, and the script's purpose disappears with it. Request Please tell me what specifically needs to change. I am not trying to escape responsibility through this appeal. I am asking for a concrete technical standard rather than the association with a previously banned account, since that association cannot be undone — the endpoint must exist somewhere.

海角助手Zbanowany (zgłoszony użytkownik) zrobił:

This report has been upheld by a moderator, but the moderator marked it as Spam.