Home Upgrade Search Memberlist Extras Hacker Tools Award Goals Help Wiki Contact

nodistribute.com is sending viruses to nod32 and avira

Do not use nodistribute.com, use razor scan only if you use a paid crypter.
No they do not.

I've tested myself scanning a FUD server everyday for 3 months, and its still FUD to this day.
Yes they do, many people know that it sends samples. Only trust razorscanner and fuckingscan.me for now.
They certainly do distribute, caught them with an uncrypted darkcomet server. I hadn't even spread the thing or uploaded it to any sites, and bam, AV companies analyzing it. I can't say exactly who and I will not test exactly who, but I can say they do distribute at least to eset.
This is old news nodistribute does in fact distribute
To everyone:

They don't send anything
And haven't since at least when they created there own crypter..
Do you think that they would send samples with there own crypter ?
I only recommend using Razor and FuckingScanMe.
Is this one of Razor's new schemes again ("Signed up Apr 2014")?
Isn't it a bit strange that NoDistribute would send results to NOD32 when it doesn't even scan the files with NOD32?

But I guess you're right... Keep scanning your files with RazorScanner and its > 30 fake AVs. :)
Oh, haven't used nodistribute in a while so I wouldn't have known. I just use which ever scanner the crypter owner prefers
(May 20, 2014 10:50 AM)Approach Wrote:  Is this one of Razor's new schemes again ("Signed up Apr 2014")?
Isn't it a bit strange that NoDistribute would send results to NOD32 when it doesn't even scan the files with NOD32?

But I guess you're right... Keep scanning your files with RazorScanner and its > 30 fake AVs. :)
Oh really you need to attack me and my products now because people start talking about yours?
Grow up kid.

NoDistribute is using Scan4You, therefor they have no control if the samples get distributed or not - so don't even try to blame them for anything at all.
Just use the scanner you prefer and if that is NoDistribute/Scan4You then I will just accept that as I can stand concurrency.
The owner of nodistribute is a scumbag, as he distributes samples to av companies.
Go with razors scanner.
(May 20, 2014 12:16 PM)Razοr Wrote:  Oh really you need to attack me and my products now because people start talking about yours?
Grow up kid.

NoDistribute is using Scan4You, therefor they have no control if the samples get distributed or not - so don't even try to blame them for anything at all.
Just use the scanner you prefer and if that is NoDistribute/Scan4You then I will just accept that as I can stand concurrency.

Perhaps you remember the little Eicar test file (http://www.eicar.org/86-0-Intended-use.html) incident that took place a couple of weeks ago?
Isn't it a bit strange that half of the Razorscanner "AVs" didn't detect Eicar as a virus?

Regarding Scan4You, don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house...
(May 20, 2014 01:50 PM)Approach Wrote:  Perhaps you remember the little Eicar test file (http://www.eicar.org/86-0-Intended-use.html) incident that took place a couple of weeks ago?
Isn't it a bit strange that half of the Razorscanner "AVs" didn't detect Eicar as a virus?

Regarding Scan4You, don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house...
1. 46 (I think, correct me if i am wrong) detected it. That's 2/3 not 1/2.
2. For some AVs I disabled warning messages (PUA warnings) and such appear on the Eicar file as it's no real virus - reasons for that where that every file compiled with MingW i.e. gets a PUA warning on 3. AVs - now tell all the people that use MingW that they will never recieve a FUD result because of a warning message that doesn't even stop the program from executing.
4. There is a possibility that an AV still fails to detect such samples - scan it on virus total and you will see that not all AVs pick it up - they should, but well we all should know that AVs never really do their job correctly.

Also timeouts can happen, old AVs as VBA are slow as fuck sometimes - I will not let any AV scan longer then 90 secs - and yes timeout happen, I guess not in this case. Anyway you can ALWAYS and on EACH online AV Scanner (doesn't matter if distributing or not)
have inaccurate results, period.

I never said your scanner or Scan4You distributes, I just say that IF there would be such issues Scan4You would be responsible and not your scanner. Neither did I attack you and your products. Your reaction changes my entire mind on you. I have seen as concurrency so far, not anymore now. I can't take people with such immature reactions serious.

Edit:
Just scanned, 47 are actually detecting it:

Spoiler (Click to View)
That it's ~80%. Weird with 30+ fake AVs, isn't it?
(May 20, 2014 02:57 PM)Razοr Wrote:  1. 46 (I think, correct me if i am wrong) detected it. That's 2/3 not 1/2.
2. For some AVs I disabled warning messages (PUA warnings) and such appear on the Eicar file as it's no real virus - reasons for that where that every file compiled with MingW i.e. gets a PUA warning on 3. AVs - now tell all the people that use MingW that they will never recieve a FUD result because of a warning message that doesn't even stop the program from executing.
4. There is a possibility that an AV still fails to detect such samples - scan it on virus total and you will see that not all AVs pick it up - they should, but well we all should know that AVs never really do their job correctly.

Also timeouts can happen, old AVs as VBA are slow as fuck sometimes - I will not let any AV scan longer then 90 secs - and yes timeout happen, I guess not in this case. Anyway you can ALWAYS and on EACH online AV Scanner (doesn't matter if distributing or not)
have inaccurate results, period.

I never said your scanner or Scan4You distributes, I just say that IF there would be such issues Scan4You would be responsible and not your scanner. Neither did I attack you and your products. Your reaction changes my entire mind on you. I have seen as concurrency so far, not anymore now. I can't take people with such immature reactions serious.

Edit:
Just scanned, 47 are actually detecting it:

Spoiler (Click to View)
That it's ~80%. Weird with 30+ fake AVs, isn't it?
Not going to lie but your shit sucks in my opinion too over priced
(May 20, 2014 07:11 PM)FrankLucas Wrote:  Not going to lie but your shit sucks in my opinion too over priced
Wait :D
It sucks because 1 scan costs 3 cents (and that is the most expensive option)?
Thanks for your opinion, but in my opinion the price is just fine considering I am not only reselling from Scan4You for profit. 🤝


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
by duhduhaJun 19, 2020 10:42 AM 36 3,098 Jun 19, 2020 10:42 AM
Last Post: doomkit
by Cr0v3rMar 17, 2020 12:41 AM 1 359 Mar 17, 2020 12:41 AM
Last Post: Cr0v3r
by NYANxCATFeb 29, 2020 01:55 AM 46 3,142 Feb 29, 2020 01:55 AM
Last Post: Stanley