So almost all of AVs detect the downloaded exe; what really matters, which one will detect the copied command before execution filelessly.
Although I do not like B in general, but the paid version has done well this time.Bitdefender paid has command line scanner. So this is the command line of mshta. It includes the malicious URL as well
We are missing the first part from goo.su that executes the disable defender functions). The one that user copy-pastes.
Not many, such detection will be Nightmare on Windows Street and will be jam packed with false positives.So almost all of AVs detect the downloaded exe; what really matters, which one will detect the copied command before execution filelessly.
The real problem MD has not reach such stage to detect the payload; the script execution disabled MD first.
OK, Shadowra sent me the video now.The real problem MD has not reach such stage to detect the payload; the script execution disabled MD first.
I do like to watch a video testing the resilience of major AVs to deactivation of fileless scripts.
This is the first clue for the users. Usage of .su TLD are mostly being utilized by Cybercriminals..SU domain, man it's been awhile but that has always been hella shady. So much bad stuff used to happen with that domain but I thought it died! Maybe not.
Without livegrid did u test it?
MD Home is a sitting duck against such disabler scripts. The Enterprise edition fares well. I believe this is a deliberate oversight by Microsoft.The real problem MD has not reach such stage to detect the payload; the script execution disabled MD first.
I do like to watch a video testing the resilience of major AVs to deactivation of fileless scripts.
Vt maybe doesn't get livegrid feeds.So the VT page is not up to date at all.
Xcitium is not showing for me.Xcitium just has joined the vendors detecting the malicious domain
View attachment 292798
Another sample; B blocked connection of mshta.exe to a url; typed such url in address field and enter: downloaded an hta file (initially was blocked by SS, and after download MD asked to upload for analysis); however, scan by MD is negative.
Uploaded to VT (detected by K and Avast).
View attachment 292802
Its flag was removed later, do not why! Anyway is was inaccurate one (phishing).Xcitium is not showing for me.View attachment 292813
Nevermind B detected Rhadamanthys persistence but unable to disinfect completely. GenD and K might do betterIts flag was removed later, do not why! Anyway is was inaccurate one (phishing).
View attachment 292814
Its flag was removed later, do not why! Anyway is was inaccurate one (phishing).
View attachment 292814
I am now more concerned about protective mechanisms against deactivation by malware than missing few samples; could not find a comparative video for major AVs in this regard.Here is another post about AVG missing a malwareLast year, it took Avast more than 3 months to finally detect a false negative fake 360, which had been VT 30+ or maybe more for a long time, as malware.
This time we talk about MD. Although not been that long until now. It has been a few weeks since I submitted the following false negative fake APP to Microsoft, and I resubmitted it again this week, but MD just missed it. Is it common, and does it happen often to all vendors?
![]()
![]()
The sample: VirusTotal
Anyrun report: Analysis https://wormhole.app/E42JRQ#A821lv6tQ3BAfdyFfM30HQ Malicious activity -...
- RRlight
- Replies: 11
- Forum: General Security Discussions
Hi, have a nice weekend.I am now more concerned about protective mechanisms against deactivation by malware than missing few samples; could not find a comparative video for major AVs in this regard.