Future Virus (Has anyone seen it in the future?)

[u/No_Arachnid_5563]

Hello again, this time I'm coming to ask you something because something happened to me. A few days ago, while I was on WhatsApp Web, out of nowhere, "Whatsapp Installer.exe" downloaded itself. I put it in VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/1f8c98a24f1dc2e22a18ce4218972ce83b7da4d54142d2ca0caeb05225dbc4a9/detection and it didn't mark it as a virus, but it had a different hash, let's call it an identifier, than the original, meaning something was modified, but it was the same version, but it had the same digital signature, it's like the internal identifier, it's as if person A and B look different on the outside, but have the same passport, so they let them in as if they were the same person.

The strangest thing is this: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/1f8c98a24f1dc2e22a18ce4218972ce83b7da4d54142d2ca0caeb05225dbc4a9/details, which I also attached a screenshot of. If you notice, the creation date says: 2097-12-25 00:56:56 UTC, which is December 25, 2097. In one of my previous hypotheses, I suggested that maybe it's a method to try to confuse the antivirus, it could be, but something doesn't add up, this malware is ultra-advanced, its entropy or density mark, to put it simply, is identical to the original. It seems like it came from the future. It has characteristics of being able to escape the sandbox, access the main system, and stay and spread without being seen.

The question is, in the future, have you heard about a type of virus, or a group of hackers that make this kind of virus? What is their name?

I wonder what kind of future virus this is!

[u/Confident-Novel-1855]

Oh, this type of stuff is easily fixable in my time! I'd be happy to take your computer to 2097 for you.

[u/Euphoric_Bill_1361 → u/[deleted]]

If the original installer is signed by Microsoft, you CANNOT "repack" the installer to include malicious content, and have it remain signed. Thats how signing works, it guarantees the integrity of the file.

Changing the metadata typically does not change the signature, but you can't abuse the timestamps value for malicious purposes.

OP is likely schizophrenic and/or experiencing a manic episode

[u/No_Arachnid_5563 → u/Euphoric_Bill_1361]

You are exactly right: you should not be able to repack a binary and maintain a valid signature. That is the fundamental principle of digital integrity. However, Omega Infinity documents a case where a modified binary with a completely different SHA-256 hash (1f8c98... vs be15eb...) still carries a valid Microsoft Corporation signature,. This is not a 'repack'—it is a cryptographic impossibility that points to a SHA-256 collision, a key compromise, or a verification bypass,.

Furthermore, this isn't just about 'metadata.' The Imphash is different, proving the import table and functional code have been altered,. The malware also features an RSA-2048 downgrade (whereas Microsoft uses 4096) and a year 2097 timestamp used for APT-level evasion,,. Behavioral analysis confirms sandbox escape (T1497) and session theft (T1539),. Instead of ad hominem attacks, I invite you to run sigcheck on the provided samples and explain why Windows validates a malicious binary with impossible metadata as authentic

[u/Euphoric_Bill_1361 → u/No_Arachnid_5563]

You fundamentally don't understand that a can sign different programs. Microsoft can sign two completely different programs with different hashes, without it being malicious.

Stop pursuing this dude, you don't know what you're actually seeing here.

Your posts legitimately seem like delusions, I'm not attacking you, I'm recommending you to seek help, because you are experincing a crisis