(Jun 20, 2020 02:09 AM)Demoralise Wrote:  I know the developer and have talked with him a few times. His demeanor can definitely be interpreted as rude and kind of an asshole, there is no doubt about that. I've even found him rude before. But he is definitely not a scammer and he does not have friends that are multis giving him rep and posting comments on his thread. That is bullshit. He has been selling the crypter for a very long time and is a very trustworthy developer. His crypter is considered to be one of the best on the market. He would never do something like this

(Jun 20, 2020 04:22 AM)rockbottomiswhereiam Wrote:  Ok, did you read the dispute thread at least? Do you know why i opened the dispute?

You are giving a worthless opinion to this thread and you gave me a "Neutral (0): A low quality member". lol 🤦‍♂️

"He would never do something like this"
-Ok! i'm now relief that he stole my $50.

(Jun 20, 2020 04:40 AM)Shone Wrote:  Well, DC is an old and quite terrible RAT, I can understand why he doesn't support it.
That being said, as a seller, he wrote on his thread that there's no support for old and unmaintained RATs. Pretty sure you could see DC and that it's 10 years old and might be considered old & unmaintained.

Even if you had doubts about it, you should have asked first if it supported DC.

But no, you bought the crypter and then later on cry for a refund that he doesn't have to give you, since it's not his mistake you weren't thinking when you made the purchase.

(Jun 20, 2020 05:28 AM)Demoralise Wrote:  DC is so well known and old that most antiviruses have their own antivirus signature and know the exact digital footprint and behaviour of the RAT to the point that runtime detection is near impossible even with a crypter. A crypter doesn't alter the digital footprint or the behaviour of the file and so those detections are there to stay. I got a crypter developed for me but my laptop completely broke down and my data is apparently unrecoverable so I lost it. If I sold that crypter I would certainly be pissed if somebody used DarkComet. Especially if they were arguing about detections

Tbh, I see why he decided to ban your licence. It is retarded to use such an old and unstable malware when there are much newer RATs like Quasar or DarkTrack which are much better options. It is incredibly hard to mask a malware that has been reverse engineered by antivirus companies thousands of times to the point that they know every single thing about the malware - not to mention it was the most popular RAT for years and therefore amongst the most commonly distributed malware on the internet and amongst the most detected malware by antivirus software. It is quite possibly the dumbest malware to use.

You should have used ASync RAT. That would have been the smartest choice.

I mean heck - if the developer of the crypter can set his software to be able to tell when a customer crypts DarkComet that pretty much just says it all doesn't it? That is how thorough DarkComet has been pulled apart. No crypter can mask that.

I can understand why he banned someone when the person demonstrates a lack of common sense and logical reasoning. Tbh I think it was very smart for him to program his crypter to detect when a customer uses DarkComet and to ban their licence. I would be concerned about my crypter gaining unnecessary detections. That is probably why he programmed it like that. It is the most likely malware to cause the crypter to become detected. It is also so stupid to use DarkComet that the customer could also be somebody dumb enough to scan their crypter file on VirusTotal. I can think of numerous good reasons for this automated banning

(Jun 20, 2020 05:54 AM)rockbottomiswhereiam Wrote:  When i bought the crypter there was a list with some RAT that couldn't be used. DC wasn't on the list, simple as that. He can't ban my license just because i used it. Also, i have no problem in using another recent RAT as i mentioned.

Quote:Next week more outdated not maintained or poorly coded apps will be added to the list!

(Jun 20, 2020 09:33 AM)Shone Wrote:  DC was not on the list, sure, but there was mention of unmaintained RATs that could not be used:


Why would you assume a 10+ year old RAT from around 2010 would be useable with a crypter from 2020, when you had clear information some of the RATs didn't work with it?

Why did you purchase this without thinking to contact the seller first to ask whether the RAT you are trying to crypt would work with the crypter, since he stated some RATs are unsupported and that more unsupported ones will be added to the list (therefore, acknowledging there is more than mentioned)?

You had the chance to, he didn't rob your money at point blank and run away with it.

But you didn't think about it, didn't stop for a second before buying and now we are here, where your clear lack of thought has driven you against a wall, you're out of $50 and quite miserable because of your own mistake, trying desperately to pin it somehow on the seller.. Sad.

(Jun 20, 2020 10:03 AM)rockbottomiswhereiam Wrote:  I made a mistake when i crypted the DC server, but that didn't give the permission to the seller to treat me like trash, ban my license and steal my money. I find it funny the people that try to defend this "seller". 🤣

Where was on the TOS that he could steal the money if a user used any RAT that wasn't on the list?

(Jun 20, 2020 10:08 AM)Shone Wrote:  No, your mistake was buying a crypter you didn't know if it was going to work with the RAT, you should have asked seller before buying it.

Opening a dispute against a seller and trying to push this "logic" of yours against him is almost an expected service suspension, since your behavior could impact other clients of a crypter and by that point you could be maliciously ruining their business. Obviously since it's his service / product, he reserves the right to terminate it of his own volition.

(Jun 27, 2020 04:28 AM)Xamarin Wrote:  I don't see any point to keep this thread open. It would be nice if a mod can actually close it.

(May 29, 2020 03:36 PM)rockbottomiswhereiam Wrote:  As my dispute thread is getting old and nothing is happening about this situation, i'm opening a community alert thread about this user n0$f3ratu$