File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is version.
Only 2 of the 62 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this widely submitted DLL, while higher-confidence engines and the combined sandbox assessment provided no…
Read the whole reasonShow less
Strong evidence · Widely seen for a long time, and nothing harmful found.
No removal is indicated by the available evidence. Keep protection enabled and verify that the DLL came with the expected application if its source is uncertain.
Good practice2 tips
We found nothing harmful in this file.
Use it only as part of a program you got from the developer's own website.
Keep your antivirus and Windows updates switched on.
No scanner can promise a file is 100% safe.
Antivirus results
2 of 62 flagged
- Flagged 2
- No detection 60
- No result 13
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 3y ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
2 points against it and 5 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
The two generic detections are most consistent with false positives: no higher-confidence engine identified malware, and no family was named. The DLL has circulated since Nov 13, 2022 across 292 submitters, while sandbox observations showed no substantiated injection, malicious network activity, or other high-risk technique.
Only 2 of the 62 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the DLL, and both detections came from less reliable engines using generic labels. Fifteen higher-confidence engines reported no detection, and no engine consensus identified a malware family. The combined sandbox verdict was clean, with no named injection target or other corroborated high-risk technique. The and mappings lacked the artefacts they describe and therefore do not establish injection or security tampering. Broad, long-standing prevalence across 292 submitters further supports the conclusion that the two alerts are false positives. The absence of a verified signature limits provenance assurance but does not outweigh the consistent benign evidence.
What We Detected
APEX and Cynet were the only 2 of the 62 antivirus engines that checked it to flag the DLL, and both returned generic alerts rather than a named malware family. Higher-confidence engines did not corroborate those results. The file has been submitted by 292 distinct sources and was first seen on Nov 13, 2022, providing a substantial history inconsistent with an isolated emerging threat.
Threat Behavior
The combined sandbox verdict was clean. No named process-injection target, persistence indicator, malicious host, malware-specific community rule, or known malicious child was identified. T1055 and T1562.001 were unsubstantiated technique mappings without the underlying artefacts, so they do not demonstrate process injection or defence tampering. The two observed domain contacts were identified as analysis-environment background traffic rather than activity from the DLL.
What To Do Now
The evidence supports treating the two generic alerts as false positives. Keep security software enabled and obtain the DLL from its expected software package or official distribution channel if provenance remains important.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- APEX and Cynet flagged the file, although neither supplied a malware-family name and no higher-confidence engine corroborated them.
- The DLL is unsigned, so there is no verified publisher identity supporting its provenance.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- Only 2 of the 62 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, with no higher-confidence detections.
- The file has been submitted by 292 distinct sources and was first seen on Nov 13, 2022.
- The combined sandbox verdict was clean and recorded no substantiated high-risk technique.
- No malicious host, malware-specific rule, public malware-database entry, or malicious child corroborated the alerts.
- The antivirus analysis found no packing or unusually high-entropy code.
- The DLL is unsigned, so its publisher cannot be verified.
- APEX and Cynet produced generic malicious alerts.
6 sources checked · all complete. See every source
Chapter 03
What it did in our test
It ran in 4 isolated tests; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 4isolated sandbox runs
- 18sandbox rule tags
- 15spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 40filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 18 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 10 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
2 of the 62 antivirus engines that checked it flag it; no publisher signature.
Sources checked
Every check behind this verdict
6 sources checked · all complete. Complete means the check returned a usable result; it does not mean the file is safe.
Engines that flagged it 2
The saved verdict treats these detections as likely false positives.
- APEXMalicious
- CynetMalicious (score: 100)
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Nov 7, 2026, 2:19 AM UTC
- SHA-256
21fbd320f805e0de095c0b0f517165fffe1122c97553cac33ee033bf78478014- SHA-1
5356f71c645fd289c37f15ba0d3d181c47460f16- MD5
82642007ad25e945f86131d4d56a76e5
About this file
version.dll is a Win32 DLL file of 386.0 kB.
- Type and size
- Win32 DLL · 386.0 kB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Nov 13, 2022On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 292 distinct sources
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 5.92 of 8
First scanned
Includes every engine result (75), 1 matched signature rule, PE section entropy and packers and how widely the file has been seen.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 05
Questions & answers
Short answers to the 6 questions people ask most about this file.
Is version.dll safe?
What is version.dll?
How many antivirus engines detected version.dll?
What is the SHA-256 hash of version.dll?
Is it safe to use version.dll?
How up to date is this analysis of version.dll?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.