A detailed analysis isn't really necessary, it's not actually a "sophisticated" sample like the article makes out, just a lot of security products are dumb and have unbalanced protection mechanisms, therefore focus more on static identification methods (e.g. checksum signatures, static heuristics), and therefore will fail against unknown threats. Even if they would've had a generic detection for the sample, with some packing mechanisms that becomes a miss of detection.Any pros in this forum would do a detailed analysis of this sample and feedback to some major AV companies to help them improve their BB module?
We can already see the APIs used, the sample doesn't even use the NTAPI itself, but the normal Win32 functions which end up leading down to the NTAPI functions of course - it is just common malware. Regardless of the "Virus behavior" which was custom for the thread by the author to reduce chances of detection, it won't stop the products from monitoring the behavior... So if the products did it properly then they would detect it regardless of all the mechanisms used, with dynamic methods.
However, I think I am making out like it "easy" to develop this sort of protection functionality... It's not, it's hard work and takes a lot of time (e.g. testing), and needs to be done very carefully since it's very fragile throughout the development.