Outside of the authorship/open-source fears[0], this is one of the more interesting ideas to surface in anti-virus.

Facing reality: anti-malware tooling is inadequate -- so inadequate, I haven't found a reason to purchase it for the one Windows machine I still have. People say "Defender works well enough, now!" and I think that's a pretty adequate way of describing it in that anti-malware has an impossible job and that is evident by every vendor's failure to succeed at it. So why pay for it?

It's always a cat-and-mouse game. This is an interesting approach, though, because it could shift the balance a little bit. Anti-malware's biggest problem is successfully identifying a threat while minimally interfering with the performance of an application. A mess of techniques are used to optimize this but when a file has to be scanned, it's expensive. It'd be interesting to see if it'd be possible to eliminate some variants of malware from on-demand scanning "if this tool defeats the malware as effectively", pushing scanning for those variants to an asynchronous process that allows the executable to run while it is being scanned.

I can see a lot of the problems with this kind of optimization[1]: it turns a "layer in the onion" into a replacement for an existing function which has more unknowns as far as attacks are concerned. Creating the environmental components required to "trick the malware" may be more expensive than just scanning. White-list scenarios may not be possible: I suspect anti-cheat services and potentially legitimate commercial software might be affected, as well[2] ... getting them to white-list a tool like this won't be easy unless the installed base is substantial. I suspect that "hiding the artifacts this tool creates to trick malware" from a white-listed processes might be impossible.

For at least a brief moment, this might be a useful tool in preventing infections from unknown threats. Brief, because -- by the author's own admissions (FAQ) -- it will devolve into a cat-and-mouse game if the tool is popular enough. There's another cat-and-mouse game, though. If this technique isn't resource intensive while offering protection somewhere in line with what it would take to implement, all of the anti-virus vendors will implement it -- including Microsoft. And they will be seen by customers as far better equipped to play "cat" or at least "the choice you won't get fired over."

And that's where it makes a whole lot of sense to open-source the product. It's a clever idea with a lot of unknowns and a very low likelihood of being a business. Unless it's being integrated into a larger security suite (same business challenges, but you have something of "a full product" as far as your customers are concerned), it's only value (outside of purely altruistic ones) would be either "popping the tool on the author's related business's website" to bring people to a related business/service or as a way to promote the author's skill set (for consulting/resume reasons). I'm not arrogant enough to say there's no way to make money from it, I just can't see it -- at least, not one that would make enough money to offset the cost of the "cat and mouse" game.

[0] Which, yeah, "I wouldn't run it on my computer" but I give the authors enough of the benefit of the doubt that "it's new"

[1] Not the least of which being that I do not author AV software so I have nothing to tell me that any of my assumptions about on-demand scanning are correct.

[2] It used to be a common practice to make reverse engineering more difficult.