Picocrypt VS upx

There's also Picocrypt.

the last thing i would recommend for you is, if you have that CVS file.... it's probably plain text.... so you should encrypt it using a tool like https://github.com/HACKERALERT/Picocrypt and a pass phrase you can remember... write it down somewhere safe, even.... that way your password list is not wide open and readable *if* an intruder gains access to your system...

Check out Picocrypt, it might be useful to you for this case

If you want more choice of encryption algorithms, try Picocrypt. Veracrypt also has more algorithms and has been audited.

Could you tell what are the similarities and differences compared to picocrypt ?

Hey so when looking at xchacha as it seems to be getting more and more popular in terms of adoption for securing files/messages etc. I noticed that when experimenting and testing file encryption with applications like dexios picocrypt and hat.sh that none of the files could be read/understood by other applications. While this doesn't happen with alot of other apps/algos likes aes afaik.

According to this source:

Following optimization, tools like UPX can compress the resulting binary, significantly reducing file size. This compression is invaluable for resource-constrained environments but adds a decompression step during binary execution.

I have been using UPX but I'm quite sure if there's something out there that offers better compression.

Ah that's nice, long ago I used parchment.js to load a inform7 created z5 file on my website. You could try to compress your executable with upx https://upx.github.io/

In this process, the given packer tool embeds a natively compiled PE into another executable that contains the information needed to unpack the original content and execute it. Perhaps the most well known packer, which is not even for malicious purposes, is Golang's UPX package.

Rewrite in C#, and use an obfuscator on the DLL. You can also write some parts in C++ as many variable and function names are forgotten when compiling. You should also encrypt the PCK, and see if you can embed it. If it's embedded, you can make it more annoying to deal with by packing it with https://upx.github.io/

Another good example of false positives like this would be binaries that are compressed with UPX - the way it works is apparently very similar to how stub-loader malware operates and signature detection tools will flag it as malicious.

This will optimise the release binary to be as small as possible. Additionally with upx we can create really small docker image !

Then I compressed it with upx, cp small.exe smallUpx.exe && upx --brute smallUpx.exe, got a 10752 bytes executable, half the size, but still pretty large