[mrunlimited2]

Hi everyone,
I’m thinking about using Pulsar RAT together with a paid premium crypter that claims to provide a WD bypass and other security-evasion features. Would that be a good option?

If I set up the RAT without startup enabled, and instead enable startup via the crypter, should the runtime detection be FUD (i.e., as undetectable as the crypter stub)?
I stopped around 40 years ago (joking) with PoisonIvy, Bifrost and am now on a new mission (challenge with pentesting).
Things have changed. Better using DarkVision or one of the pricy options for getting a FUD RAT with nice features?

Others told me that Pulsar isnt stable at all...confusing.
Would like a RAT like Poisonivy 20 years ago. Super stable, stub of 10kb and with free crypter 9/10 UD.
That was a time.

[DramaKing]

Hi everyone,
I’m thinking about using Pulsar RAT together with a paid premium crypter that claims to provide a WD bypass and other security-evasion features. Would that be a good option?

If I set up the RAT without startup enabled, and instead enable startup via the crypter, should the runtime detection be FUD (i.e., as undetectable as the crypter stub)?
I stopped around 40 years ago (joking) with PoisonIvy, Bifrost and am now on a new mission (challenge with pentesting).
Things have changed. Better using DarkVision or one of the pricy options for getting a FUD RAT with nice features?

Others told me that Pulsar isnt stable at all...confusing.
Would like a RAT like Poisonivy 20 years ago. Super stable, stub of 10kb and with free crypter 9/10 UD.
That was a time.

Pulsar is stable, and you won't find much more than a basic reverse shell that's 10kb or less.
There are no FUD RATs.
It will take testing to know the runtime detection of a crypter stub. Adding the stub to startup will add a Mitre signature. It may increase the number of detections.