Let the faggot bitch OP dare to claim that it has a virus or exploit in it. I will cancel my account right now if that lying jew can prove it. He's just a feminist SJW trying to sow discord on voat.
For anyone who skims, not reads, this particular exploit is four years old.
I’ve never worked with anti-virus definitions, but I assume blocking out the entirety of Metasploit would be as simple as finding the common markers left in it’s generated payloads and make sure you computer scans opened files in real time Incase the infected program is encrypted (which it most likely is).
The craziest part about reading that guide was the comment section. One of them actually asked, “can you please tell how to write the path and filename”
Also, there were a group of people on there asking about a specific error they got when trying to compile the file, one that was as simple as forgetting to set the target file’s name.
What kind of jackasses are these people? Do they seriously have this little of computer savvy, but think they can write viruses? It’s idiots like that that can almost guarantee that anti-virus/malware developers get these kinds of programs in their definitions PDQ.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the entire program itself, Metasploit, was just one massive virus designed to attract amateurs who think they can do anything by reading a single guide.
Whats worse is, for people with default browser settings, many people have likely already been infected, why? Because most browsers, by default, preload page links before you even click on them.
Trivial stuff gets picked up and detected, anything even two bits beyond trivial passes the 'filter' so to speak, even if for all intents and purposes it is the same as a known definition. The big secret of the virus industry is that detection rates are absolute shit these days.
My first time involved with anything 'virus' related was a little more than a year ago. I wrote a keylogger in about eight hours, the most generic garbage a novice could come up with. Nothing on virus total detected it. Most of what is out there is recycled anyway.
In my observations, a non-insignificant number of people need to fall victim to a piece of malware before it finds its way into any anti virus definitions.
How deep does your observation go, though? Genuinely asking, because I am 90% sure I read a piece from Kaspersky once, not that long ago, about how they were one of the anti-virus companies that believed in being proactive by having a team that finds exploits, writes viruses, then adds them to their definitions, should someone ever try and... exploit that exploit lol.
When part of your duties is to clean infected machines, after pertinent number of users fall victim to a particular malware you begin to notice it by name. Generally, only a day or two later AV tools will actively identify the threat. Just a lag time that I have observed though that's just my view, the guys writing AV likely have better insights.
The guide itself was written four years ago, which is what I meant; the exploit would have been available since Adobe Reader 9 was available... hold on lemme’ jewgle... June 2, 2008.
voltronsdicks ago
the good news is this PDF has already been vouched for.
Let the faggot bitch OP dare to claim that it has a virus or exploit in it. I will cancel my account right now if that lying jew can prove it. He's just a feminist SJW trying to sow discord on voat.
Womb_Raider ago
It hasn't been vouched for. Stop spamming this fucking link. Reported yet again. @PuttItOut @PeaceSeeker @Cynabuns
carlip ago
scriptsafe stops pdfs from downloading automatically.
TestForScience ago
For anyone who skims, not reads, this particular exploit is four years old.
I’ve never worked with anti-virus definitions, but I assume blocking out the entirety of Metasploit would be as simple as finding the common markers left in it’s generated payloads and make sure you computer scans opened files in real time Incase the infected program is encrypted (which it most likely is).
The craziest part about reading that guide was the comment section. One of them actually asked, “can you please tell how to write the path and filename”
Also, there were a group of people on there asking about a specific error they got when trying to compile the file, one that was as simple as forgetting to set the target file’s name.
What kind of jackasses are these people? Do they seriously have this little of computer savvy, but think they can write viruses? It’s idiots like that that can almost guarantee that anti-virus/malware developers get these kinds of programs in their definitions PDQ.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the entire program itself, Metasploit, was just one massive virus designed to attract amateurs who think they can do anything by reading a single guide.
captainstrange ago
Whats worse is, for people with default browser settings, many people have likely already been infected, why? Because most browsers, by default, preload page links before you even click on them.
Trivial stuff gets picked up and detected, anything even two bits beyond trivial passes the 'filter' so to speak, even if for all intents and purposes it is the same as a known definition. The big secret of the virus industry is that detection rates are absolute shit these days. My first time involved with anything 'virus' related was a little more than a year ago. I wrote a keylogger in about eight hours, the most generic garbage a novice could come up with. Nothing on virus total detected it. Most of what is out there is recycled anyway.
RollinDaGrassTyson ago
In my observations, a non-insignificant number of people need to fall victim to a piece of malware before it finds its way into any anti virus definitions.
TestForScience ago
How deep does your observation go, though? Genuinely asking, because I am 90% sure I read a piece from Kaspersky once, not that long ago, about how they were one of the anti-virus companies that believed in being proactive by having a team that finds exploits, writes viruses, then adds them to their definitions, should someone ever try and... exploit that exploit lol.
RollinDaGrassTyson ago
When part of your duties is to clean infected machines, after pertinent number of users fall victim to a particular malware you begin to notice it by name. Generally, only a day or two later AV tools will actively identify the threat. Just a lag time that I have observed though that's just my view, the guys writing AV likely have better insights.
voltronsdicks ago
the good news is this PDF has already been vouched for.
Let the faggot bitch OP dare to claim that it has a virus or exploit in it. I will cancel my account right now if that lying jew can prove it.
k_digi ago
this. basically.
albatrosv15 ago
2014 seems awfully recent. I remember i did this in 2011. I also remember there weren't so many illiterate idiots larping as hackers.
TestForScience ago
The guide itself was written four years ago, which is what I meant; the exploit would have been available since Adobe Reader 9 was available... hold on lemme’ jewgle... June 2, 2008.
tame ago
Things like this make me glad I don't have any Adobe products on my system.
sugamari ago
oya - hah forgot pdf was adobe - agreed. Adobe is the bane of the internet