Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1114619" data-attributes="member: 32260">I believe you. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I think that your RAT can be undetected by top AVs because the C2 server is local and the sample is not persistent.No. For example, the current version of Avast can block most FUDs via CyberCapture. Many FUDs use old or rarely updated crypters and can be detected by Microsoft Defender and some other AVs by Machine Learning and code emulation. Of course, many FUDs can bypass such security.&nbsp; But those bypasses are removed after a short time, so the crypters must be updated daily to produce true FUDs. After some time, the crypter is useless, and a new crypter is developed.All that I posted was related also to home users.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1114619, member: 32260"] I believe you. :) I think that your RAT can be undetected by top AVs because the C2 server is local and the sample is not persistent. No. For example, the current version of Avast can block most FUDs via CyberCapture. Many FUDs use old or rarely updated crypters and can be detected by Microsoft Defender and some other AVs by Machine Learning and code emulation. Of course, many FUDs can bypass such security. But those bypasses are removed after a short time, so the crypters must be updated daily to produce true FUDs. After some time, the crypter is useless, and a new crypter is developed. All that I posted was related also to home users. [/QUOTE]

Verification