[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

A reply from the article author sort of communicates why they don’t work with the patcher:

> They don’t use the shell extension mechanism to get into the process. They sneak in by nefarious means. Patching is not supported. There is no “correct” way of doing it. Just different levels of bad.

I assume the “nefarious” ways are similar to rootkits in that they exploit vulnerabilities to gain system access they’re not intended to have.

It’s also only really the reason they don’t care that the patcher breaks. The reason I assume they don’t add or retain these features is maintenance and support cost.

[poizan42]

No, the "nefarious" means they are simply using APIs like WriteProcessMemory/ VirtualProtectEx/CreateRemoteThreadEx to modify the memory of runing programs or use SetWindowsHookEx to install global hooks (which inject your dll into every process for the non low-level events)

[Vvector]

Is this any different than what a virus would do?

[Filligree]

Yes. Intent matters.

[xboxnolifes]

Is these APIs are only used by viruses, why do they exist?

[jdewerd]

Because they are also used by debuggers, security tools, and other flavors of "keep the world humming along despite its best efforts to kill itself."

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

We might add to the list "tools and utilities desired by power users".

[mrguyorama]

Sure, but if you use/build a tool that modifies how Windows runs by trawling through and manipulating internal process memory that explicitly is not meant to be modified by anything else, that's on you.

It's like asking why Nintendo won't support the NES you desoldered the CPU from and replaced with a higher clock capable CMOS 6502 and new crystal

"Nintendo is such a bad company, I upgraded my NES and now it can't play anything"

No buddy, you broke the machine!