DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Hey guys,
i know that there are many crypters claiming to be runtime FUD but they still cost alot of money usually.
Now my question is if anyone may know a free crypter that could bypass WD or AV runtime?
Im glad for any piece of information regarding this topic.
(Sep 19, 2021 04:11 PM)AdjoiningVariation30 Wrote: Hey guys,
i know that there are many crypters claiming to be runtime FUD but they still cost alot of money usually.
Now my question is if anyone may know a free crypter that could bypass WD or AV runtime?
Im glad for any piece of information regarding this topic.
Even paid ones. Most of them are not able to bypass runtime windows defender. Free and fud runtime? No.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Thanks for the quick reply, I guess there needs to be a workaround to not get the code detected in the first place.
Well, good luck trying to find something free and runtime undetected... That is rare.
Sep 20, 2021 05:41 AM
(This post was last modified: Sep 20, 2021 05:41 AM by Demoralise.)
(Sep 20, 2021 05:32 AM)Quicksilver16384 Wrote: Well, good luck trying to find something free and runtime undetected... That is rare. Not at all. It is really easy to get around Windows Defender through basic obfuscation packing. Modified versions of ConfuserEX or other obfuscaters would suffice
anyone please provide any free crypts
(Sep 20, 2021 05:41 AM)Demoralise Wrote: Not at all. It is really easy to get around Windows Defender through basic obfuscation packing. Modified versions of ConfuserEX or other obfuscaters would suffice
Well, Obfuscation will not always hide the dirty behavior that some programs do during runtime, so it's a jackpot. It's like trying to crypt DarkComet using sophisticated obfuscation/packing techniques and expect some antiviruses (not just WD) to never detect it. They will eventually get caught during runtime because some of its features behave in such a way that they leave traces of what they are and the behavioral shield knows it by signature, then I guess it determines which PID the activity is coming from, and you know what goes next...
I've been off the malware field for quite a while, I don't know if antivirus companies have another approach when it comes to runtime detections, but sure enough, they are better than they were 2 years ago.
(Sep 20, 2021 05:53 AM)Quicksilver16384 Wrote: Well, Obfuscation will not always hide the dirty behavior that some programs do during runtime, so it's a jackpot. It's like trying to crypt DarkComet using sophisticated obfuscation/packing techniques and expect some antiviruses (not just WD) to never detect it. They will eventually get caught during runtime because some of its features behave in such a way that they leave traces of what they are and the behavioral shield knows it by signature, then I guess it determines which PID the activity is coming from, and you know what goes next...
I've been off the malware field for quite a while, I don't know if antivirus companies have another approach when it comes to runtime detections, but sure enough, they are better than they were 2 years ago. If people are still attempting to crypt or get around AVs using heavily known malware then they are idiots. You are right though. Popular malware often have signature detections/behavioural signatures that almost every antivirus picks up on regardless of encoding. But many new pieces of malware are released all the time like NYAN CAT's RAT which still is fairly easy enough to get around antiviruses. That is more the stupidity of the user. A layer 7 problem per se
(Sep 20, 2021 05:57 AM)Demoralise Wrote: If people are still attempting to crypt or get around AVs using heavily known malware then they are idiots. You are right though. Popular malware often have signature detections/behavioural signatures that almost every antivirus picks up on regardless of encoding. But many new pieces of malware are released all the time like NYAN CAT's RAT which still is fairly easy enough to get around antiviruses. That is more the stupidity of the user. A layer 7 problem per se
Heheh, yeah. I think you meant layer 8 🤣
(Sep 20, 2021 05:59 AM)Quicksilver16384 Wrote: Heheh, yeah. I think you meant layer 8 🤣 Yes sorry, layer 8
there is zero chance for free crypter to pass runtime scan.
highly reccomend buying one...
there is alot of good crypters right there that will make the job done.
Even then, you should know to do it propely, otherwise you may get deductions..
|
