Yeah now things are getting ridiculous. I'm really starting to wonder how many people should really be here if they don't know how to read or make mature rational decisions. As a result, it's far less likely anybody will want to provide cracks for future games or versions because they won't want to deal with idiots who can't just consider the possibility that the antivirus is putting up a false positive, or just not downloading/running and going on with their day.
If you've been on the internet long enough and played cracked games, sooner or later you will come across a crack that gets flagged. I've come across them and while I don't just run it right away, I do enough digging to help figure out if it is a false positive or not. In most cases, the crack is fine. In the small amount of cases where I am that unsure, I would only run that game with the crack in a virtual machine or a sandbox. All in all, I used an older PC for 10 years and never got infected and my current one with better parts has yet to be infected.
BTW, even regular programs and games can get flagged. For example, on this site there is a game called Paio Hazard that was getting flagged. When I did my research I checked multiple downloads of the game and each one was flagged, including the original Japanese version of the game. Finally I downloaded the trial version of the game directly from DLsite and it too got flagged. Here's the results:
You must be registered to see the links
For a standard program, a programmer would usually need to submit their file to the antivirus devs so they could properly vet the file. But this only works for that particular version. Each time the program gets updated, there is a likelihood that it could be flagged again, and again. Sooner or later, the developer gives up and tells their users that it may get flagged and to either trust them or not run it. And of course some people pester said devs because they don't understand why the program would get flagged and despite literally having the source code that they can build from, they don't trust it because they don't understand how to read or do anything with it. For a person making cracks, it doesn't make any sense to submit a crack to the AV devs because the whole point of a crack is to bypass DRM and avoid being detected by the DRM, and therefore you would think it would be obvious that you try to obfuscate the crack's behavior, but apparently not for some people. And guess what, the cracking process likely has to be done for each update too, so if the dev showed how the crack worked, it would have only meant that next time it would be much harder.
I strongly doubt anybody demanding proof that this crack is safe would even be able to understand any of it, and are also unable to make their own crack either. I can understand being a bit paranoid. You have options if you do not fully trust the crack. You can run it in a virtual machine, you can run it in a sandbox, you can run it on a separate PC, or you can choose to not run it at all. Whatever one chooses, I do not think being accusatory toward the person that made the crack for free was appropriate. They didn't have to do this for you, they could have just told you to buy the game if you wanted to play it. Then you would have to deal with DRM. You can still buy the game and deal with the DRM if you do not trust the crack.
And to add onto this: I scanned the uncracked 1.0 version provided earlier in the thread with virustotal and that zip also got flagged. Results here:
You must be registered to see the links
If this file was the same zip file that is provided by DLSite, then it's most definitely a false positive (sha256 was 58793c4653df1ea499c6ea4b4acf168cf0318753e0f27ebfd58b609498fa86fe). But people who know nothing about it will probably automatically assume it must be infected.