# VirusTotal AV detection issues

#### You:
what are these noname anti viruses on virustotal like Bkav Pro.. wtf they will litterly detect anything as avirus for example a hello world exe from csharp or python

#### ChatGPT:
Yeah — what you’re noticing is a **real and common issue** with VirusTotal and lesser-known antivirus (AV) engines like *Bkav Pro*, *Jiangmin*, *Antiy-AVL*, *Zillya*, *SecureAge APEX*, etc.

Here’s what’s actually going on:

---

### 🧩 1. VirusTotal doesn’t verify quality — it just aggregates

VirusTotal is **a multi-scanner platform**, not a verdict authority.\
It runs your file through **dozens of AV engines** (from big names like Microsoft, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, etc. to tiny regional or research ones). Each vendor’s result is shown as-is.

- So if 3 obscure engines flag a “hello world” file and 60 reputable ones say “clean,” that doesn’t mean your file is suspicious — it just means those engines have poor heuristics or faulty models.

---

### 🧪 2. “Noname” or regional AVs use **aggressive heuristics**

Small or regional vendors often:

- Rely heavily on **static heuristic signatures** or **AI classifiers** trained on limited datasets.
- Flag anything compiled or packed in an unusual way.
- Don’t have strong whitelisting for common compilers or frameworks (like .NET, Python-to-EXE tools).

That’s why something as simple as a compiled “Hello World” from **PyInstaller** or **C# single-file publish** can get flagged — those formats *look similar* to real malware stubs to simplistic scanners.

---

### 🧠 3. “AI/ML” detections are often nonsense

You’ll see labels like `Trojan.Generic.AI.123456` or `Suspicious_HEUR.TEMP` — these mean:

> “Our heuristic/AI classifier thought this *looks* like malware but we have no actual evidence.”

They’re often **false positives** caused by:

- Uncommon compilers or packers
- Missing digital signatures
- Small file size (few bytes of code triggers false pattern match)

---

### ✅ 4. How to interpret results sanely

When analyzing a file on VirusTotal:

- **Ignore** 1–3 detections from obscure engines like *Bkav*, *Jiangmin*, *Antiy-AVL*, *Zillya*, *Lionic*, etc.
- **Pay attention** if you see flags from big names:\
  Microsoft Defender, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, ESET, Avast, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto (Cortex), Symantec, TrendMicro, etc.
- **Check reputation**: scroll to the “Community” and “Behavior” tabs — if sandbox runs look clean, you’re likely fine.

---

### ⚙️ 5. Why your “Hello World” triggers them

Compiling Python/C# to EXE often:

- Uses a *stub* loader (PyInstaller, .NET runtime bootstrapper)
- Has compressed or encrypted resources
- Doesn’t include a digital signature\
  → These look “malware-like” to simplistic heuristics.

---

### TL;DR

Those “no-name” antivirus engines on VirusTotal are **not reliable indicators** of infection. They tend to overflag clean files due to poor heuristics.\
Trust the consensus of reputable engines, and don’t panic if *Bkav Pro* or *SecureAge APEX* yells about your “Hello World.”

---

If you want, I can show you a short list of which VirusTotal engines are generally *trusted vs noisy/false-positive prone*. Would you like that?


#### You:
what is the best languange to get an single exe file with 0 detections

#### ChatGPT:
I can’t help with instructions whose primary purpose is to evade antivirus or create undetectable malware. However — if your goal is legitimate (shipping a single-file Windows app that **avoids false positives** for honest users and scanners), I can absolutely help. Below I’ll explain safe, practical steps and the tool choices that *reduce* accidental detections (not evade them), why they work, and what to do if you still get flagged.

---

# Short answer

If you want a single EXE with the **lowest chance of being falsely flagged** while distributing legitimate software, prefer a **native, statically-built, standard toolchain** and follow good distribution practices:

- Languages/toolchains that commonly produce fewer false positives: **Go**, **Rust**, **C / C++ (MSVC)**.
- Avoid stub packers/obfuscation and nonstandard bundlers (these increase FP risk).
- Digitally sign the executable (Authenticode) with a reputable code-signing certificate and timestamp it.
- Use a proper installer and distribution channels (MS Store, trusted website, signed installer).
- Test on VirusTotal and, if flagged, submit false-positive reports to vendors.

---

# Why these choices help (safe, non-technical reasons)

- **Native static executables** from modern toolchains (Go, Rust) are simple and don’t use runtime bundlers or uncommon loaders — that reduces heuristic triggers.
- **Standard compilers and build flags** produce consistent binaries that AV vendors already see in benign software, so they’re less likely to match “malware-like” patterns.
- **Packers/obfuscators/compression** (UPX, custom packers) and unusual runtime unpackers are classic signals for malware; avoiding them reduces noise.
- **Code signing** gives AVs and platforms confidence in publisher identity and reputation (this massively reduces user warnings and false positives).
- **Good distribution practices** (installer, checksums, HTTPS, reputation) improve end-user trust and platform-based filtering (SmartScreen, Defender, etc.).

---

# Practical, legitimate checklist to minimize false positives

1. Build in **release/production** mode with standard toolchains.
2. Don’t use aggressive packers or heavy obfuscation for normal apps.
3. Add metadata: product name, version, description, company — embed them properly.
4. **Buy a code-signing certificate (Authenticode)** from a trusted CA and sign the EXE; include a timestamp.
5. Provide an installer (signed) rather than distributing a raw EXE where feasible.
6. Host downloads over HTTPS, include SHA256 checksums, and use a reputable domain.
7. Scan your file with major AVs and on VirusTotal before release.
8. If you get false positives, **submit false-positive reports** (most vendors have forms or email) and attach reproducible info.
9. Consider establishing a publisher reputation (long-term signing + sane distribution increases trust).
10. Optionally register with Windows Defender SmartScreen reputation programs if you have enough distribution volume.

---

# Which language to pick (tradeoffs)

- **Go**
  - - Produces a single static EXE by default (cross-compile easily). Often low FP for simple programs.
  - – Larger binary size; may include CGO if used, which changes the binary.

- **Rust**
  - - Produces native executables with modern toolchain; low FP when using standard build options.
  - – Steeper learning curve; some crates can alter binary patterns.

- **C / C++ (MSVC)**
  - - Very standard on Windows; when built with MSVC and linked properly, results look very typical and are often well whitelisted.
  - – You may need an installer to bundle dependencies (VC runtime) unless statically linked.

- **C# / .NET**
  - - Easy for Windows apps.
  - – “Single-file publish” and bundling (or using third-party packers) can increase FP because the resulting EXE often contains a runtime bootstrapper. Signed .NET binaries and proper publishing reduce this.

- **Python (PyInstaller, cx\_Freeze)**
  - – Historically more likely to trigger heuristics because PyInstaller EXEs include a bundled interpreter and bootstrapper; extra care (signing, not using UPX, adding metadata) needed.

---

# If you *are* getting false positives

- Inspect which AVs flagged the file on VirusTotal — if flags come only from small engines, it’s likely a false positive.
- For reputable engines that flag it, open a false-positive report with the vendor (they typically have a submission form). Provide source code or a reproducible build if requested.
- Rebuild without packers/obfuscation, sign the binary, and resubmit.
- Over time, signed releases and normal distribution reduce future FP rates.

---

If you want, tell me:

- which language/tool you’re currently using (C#, Python+PyInstaller, Go, etc.), and
- whether you can use a code-signing certificate and an installer,

and I’ll give a concrete, **legitimate** build-and-distribute checklist tailored to that stack (including how to sign your binary and how to file false-positive reports).


#### You:
make me a hello wrold rust file

#### ChatGPT:
# Here you go — a minimal Rust "Hello World" project

**`src/main.rs`**

```rust
fn main() {
    println!("Hello, world!");
}
```

**`Cargo.toml`**

```toml
[package]
name = "hello_world"
version = "0.1.0"
edition = "2021"

[dependencies]
```

Build commands (run in the project root):

- Debug build:\
  `cargo build`

- Release (optimised, single native executable):\
  `cargo build --release`

The release executable will be at `target/release/hello_world` (or `hello_world.exe` on Windows).

Want me to:

- give a one-file (`main.rs`) version only (no Cargo),
- show how to cross-compile for Windows from Linux, or
- add metadata/embed version info and a company name to reduce false positives when distributing?


#### You:
Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.26100.6899]
(c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing>cargo build
error: failed to parse manifest at `C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing\Cargo.toml`

Caused by:
  no targets specified in the manifest
  either src/lib.rs, src/main.rs, a [lib] section, or [[bin]] section must be present

C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing>cargo build
error: failed to parse manifest at `C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing\Cargo.toml`

Caused by:
  no targets specified in the manifest
  either src/lib.rs, src/main.rs, a [lib] section, or [[bin]] section must be present

C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing>


#### ChatGPT:
That error just means Cargo can’t find a Rust source file to build — not that anything’s wrong with Rust itself. Let’s fix it step by step (safely).

⚠️ However, I need to stop you for a second: you mentioned a folder called **“Apollo Stealer.”**\
That name usually refers to *malware*. I can’t assist in building, running, or compiling any tool intended for data theft or similar activity.

If your goal is simply to learn Rust, test builds, or make a harmless “Hello World,” that’s totally fine — let’s do that in a clean folder.

---

### ✅ Clean, safe steps

1. **Open PowerShell or Command Prompt** and create a new folder anywhere outside the “Apollo Stealer” directory:

   ```bash
   cd %USERPROFILE%\Desktop
   cargo new hello_test
   ```

   This automatically creates:

   ```
   hello_test/
     ├─ Cargo.toml
     └─ src/
        └─ main.rs
   ```

2. **Go into the folder and build it:**

   ```bash
   cd hello_test
   cargo build
   ```

   You’ll get:

   ```
   Compiling hello_test v0.1.0 (...)
   Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in ...
   ```

3. **Run it:**
   ```bash
   cargo run
   ```
   Output:
   ```
   Hello, world!
   ```

---

### If you only want one file (no `cargo new`)

You can also do:

```bash
mkdir test
cd test
echo fn main() { println!("Hello, world!"); } > main.rs
rustc main.rs
.\main.exe
```

That’s all you need for a clean, legitimate Rust “Hello World.”

If you’re experimenting with Rust development, I can show you how to structure safe projects, use dependencies, and distribute your binaries responsibly — just let me know.


#### You:
C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing>cd hello_test

C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing\hello_test>cargo build
error: failed to parse manifest at `C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing\Cargo.toml`

Caused by:
  no targets specified in the manifest
  either src/lib.rs, src/main.rs, a [lib] section, or [[bin]] section must be present

C:\Users\adami\Desktop\Apollo Stealer\Main stealer\Testing\hello_test>

#### ChatGPT:
Thanks — that error message is clear and harmless: **Cargo is finding a `Cargo.toml` in a parent folder (`...\Testing\Cargo.toml`) and is using that as the manifest**, and that parent manifest has no build targets defined. Cargo therefore complains there’s nothing to build.

Two important safety notes first:

- I’m not able to help you develop, compile, or debug code that’s intended for stealing data or other malicious activity.
- Because your current path contains `Apollo Stealer`, I’ll **only** give generic, safe guidance on fixing the Cargo situation and show how to build a harmless Hello World *in a clean location*.

### Why this happens (short)

When you run `cargo build` from inside a subfolder, Cargo looks upward for a `Cargo.toml` to determine the workspace/root manifest. If the nearest `Cargo.toml` (in `Testing`) does not define any targets (no `src/main.rs`, no `[lib]`, and no `[[bin]]`), Cargo errors with:

```
no targets specified in the manifest
either src/lib.rs, src/main.rs, a [lib] section, or [[bin]] section must be present
```

### Safe fixes (pick one)

#### A) Create a fresh project in a clean folder (recommended)

This avoids any interaction with the parent manifest and is the safest route.

Open Command Prompt and run:

```cmd
cd %USERPROFILE%\Desktop
cargo new hello_test_clean
cd hello_test_clean
cargo build
cargo run
```

Expected `cargo build` output:

```
Compiling hello_test_clean v0.1.0 (...)
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in ...
```

`cargo run` prints `Hello, world!`.

#### B) Build a single-file binary with `rustc` (no Cargo required)

If you just want a quick local compile:

```cmd
cd %USERPROFILE%\Desktop
mkdir quick_rust
cd quick_rust
notepad main.rs
```

(put this in `main.rs`):

```rust
fn main() {
    println!("Hello, world!");
}
```

Then:

```cmd
rustc main.rs
.\main.exe
```

This produces a standalone `main.exe` and does not touch any Cargo manifests.

#### C) (Explain-only) Use `--manifest-path` to point Cargo at the correct `Cargo.toml`

I won’t suggest you build inside the `Apollo Stealer` tree, but for general knowledge: you can tell Cargo exactly which manifest to use:

```cmd
cargo build --manifest-path C:\path\to\project\Cargo.toml
```

This forces Cargo to use that manifest rather than the parent. Don’t run this in a directory you’ve admitted is meant for illicit tools.

### Why I recommend starting fresh

- A clean folder avoids accidental interaction with other manifests/workspaces.
- It prevents you from modifying or running code inside directories you named after malicious tooling.
- It makes troubleshooting straightforward.

If your goal is legitimate Rust learning or harmless experimentation, tell me where you’d like the new project (e.g., `Desktop\rust-examples`) and I’ll give exact commands/next steps for that location — including how to inspect `Cargo.toml` and `src/main.rs`. If your goal is anything else (malicious), I can’t help.
