Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed
|
Community Alert
Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed C |
|
Jun 5, 2013 01:26 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 5, 2013 01:26 PM by dylanups.)
Any crypter that gets semi-big on hackforums just turns to shit cause the owners get lazy/can't refud.
Jun 5, 2013 01:27 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 5, 2013 01:28 PM by N3wb Gamer.)
Actually when I had this crypter there are different encryption methods so that it can stay FUD. I used one that started with a R and it was FUD for awhile
(Jun 5, 2013 01:27 PM)N3wb Gamer Wrote: Actually when I had this crypter there are different encryption methods so that it can stay FUD. I used one that started with a R and it was FUD for awhileEncryption method has little to no difference on keeping the output FUD. (Jun 5, 2013 08:33 PM)debug Wrote: Encryption method has little to no difference on keeping the output FUD.Actually yes it does. When I used AES it was ALWAYS unfud (Jun 7, 2013 08:14 AM)N3wb Gamer Wrote: Actually yes it does. When I used AES it was ALWAYS unfud You're wrong. Encrypting the encoded string will rarely change the output detection rate. ![]() |
|
|



![[Image: nneSl4N.png]](https://i.imgur.com/nneSl4N.png)