+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.li)
+-- Forum: Coding (https://sinister.li/Forum-Coding)
+--- Forum: Visual Basic & .NET Framework (https://sinister.li/Forum-Visual-Basic-NET-Framework)
+--- Thread: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) (/Thread-Codedom-Crypter-Full-Source)
Pages:
1
2
Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - Lethal - 08-19-2013
okkCrypter was not coded by me and I give all credits to the original coder.
Features:
- Pump File
- EOF Support
- Change Icon
- Change File Info
Picture:
![[Image: WijxuRG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/WijxuRG.png)
Soure Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?stt88m7ea7jxmx1
RE: Codedom Crypter - FUD - Legolas - 08-19-2013
Hello.
You should puta virus Scan of this Crypter.
Thank you,
Legolas.
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - Lethal - 08-19-2013
(08-19-2013, 05:09 PM)Legolas Wrote: Hello.
You should puta virus Scan of this Crypter.
Thank you,
Legolas.
It's a source, you can look at it yourself.
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - Slarek - 08-19-2013
Where do you get these, if these aren't yours?
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - ArkPhaze - 08-22-2013
(08-19-2013, 06:14 PM)Slarek Wrote: Where do you get these, if these aren't yours?
Stuff like these are not hard to make? Why do you have to *get* it from someplace? :S I don't understand.
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - x_h0rr0r_x - 08-22-2013
(08-19-2013, 05:09 PM)Legolas Wrote: Hello.
You should puta virus Scan of this Crypter.
Thank you,
Legolas.
All a virus scan does is show you if the program is tagged by av companies.It does not tell you if the program has a backdoor..A virus scan in my opinion is useless..A false sense of security..
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - ArkPhaze - 08-22-2013
(08-22-2013, 02:12 AM)x_h0rr0r_x Wrote:(08-19-2013, 05:09 PM)Legolas Wrote: Hello.
You should puta virus Scan of this Crypter.
Thank you,
Legolas.
All a virus scan does is show you if the program is tagged by av companies.It does not tell you if the program has a backdoor..A virus scan in my opinion is useless..A false sense of security..
Tagged? Explain...
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - x_h0rr0r_x - 08-22-2013
(08-22-2013, 02:50 AM)ArkPhaze Wrote:(08-22-2013, 02:12 AM)x_h0rr0r_x Wrote:(08-19-2013, 05:09 PM)Legolas Wrote: Hello.
You should puta virus Scan of this Crypter.
Thank you,
Legolas.
All a virus scan does is show you if the program is tagged by av companies.It does not tell you if the program has a backdoor..A virus scan in my opinion is useless..A false sense of security..
Tagged? Explain...
AV companies consider alot of RAT's as trojans.Which they are really trojan builders.They build a part of the program that is the server(for you remote host)
Ok,Lets say I am using a remote admin tool(DarkComet).The AV companies will tagg it as malware(trojan,virus,etc) so when you download it you will get a pop up from your virus protection saying that is infected with (backdoor,trojan,malware)..When infact it is just a tool..If used properly it will have no effect on you computer..But if you download a tool,program,browser and you don't get a notification from your av that does not mean that the program is clean.Infact there are tools to make everything undetectable to av scanners.The only real way to be sure of no backdoor is to analyze the program with a hex editor or upload it to a place like anubis where they will analyze it and show results...Or you could use a VM with wireshark and analyze the program that way....Being tagged by AV's doesnt mean that the program is harmful to your computer..It's just considered by the av companies to be malicious..
-x_h0rr0r_x
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - ArkPhaze - 08-22-2013
Quote:AV companies consider alot of RAT's as trojans.Which they are really trojan builders
I don't see the difference when the goal in the end is the same. Thus this has no bearing on what they mark it as, whether it's a trojan itself or a RAT. And a RAT is not a trojan builder... :S Where did you ever get the notion that a remote administration tool is a trojan builder? TeamViewer is an example of a RAT which is commonly used for non-malicious intent.
A RAT is a RAT... If it's meant for malware then it probably has malicious code embedded within (for instance, to hide itself from TaskManager). Tool or not is irrelevant. I think you're confused by this idea of tagging you have. They tag files based on the scan results, which is based on what malicious signatures are detected within the binary itself. Scanners have no concept of what the program is going to be used for, it checks for signatures in the code which are generally in other malicious files that have been reported.
Of course if nothing is shown as detected it doesn't guarantee that the file is clean. Everybody should know that. But what it does mean is that it didn't match any of the already known malicious signatures out there. So why would you completely avoid checking the known malicious content, just because of the chance that someone has created something malicious that is not yet detected by an AV? That doesn't make sense.
The fact that there are "tools" to make *everything* undetectable to AV scanners doesn't mean that they are the golden solution, and it also doesn't mean it will stay undetectable forever. There's a reason why AV programs get updates.
Quote:The only real way to be sure of no backdoor is to analyze the program with a hex editor or upload it to a place like anubis where they will analyze it and show results
A hex editor? lol... Places like VirusTotal analyze the file too you know? :S
Quote:Being tagged by AV's doesnt mean that the program is harmful to your computer.
No, I mentioned this above, but usually there's a signature that it's *tagged* with, and if you are curious you can do your own investigation after that point in time like most would do. If anything a scan gives you a hint for what to look for should you decide to check the file on your own instead of doing it blindly. You can determine whether it's a false positive or not, and maybe you find something else hidden in that binary along the way.
RE: Codedom Crypter (Full Source) - Slarek - 08-22-2013
(08-22-2013, 01:20 AM)ArkPhaze Wrote:(08-19-2013, 06:14 PM)Slarek Wrote: Where do you get these, if these aren't yours?
Stuff like these are not hard to make? Why do you have to *get* it from someplace? :S I don't understand.
I know these aren't hard to make. He said that he didn't made it and that's why i asked. Do you understand now?