File scan report
Verdict Suspicious
Is setup. exe safe? Treat it as suspicious.
The file's age (2011) and generic riskware labels complicate the picture, but the offensive sandbox behaviour outweighs the low engine count.
Read the whole reasonShow less
Why Suspicious? 2 antivirus engines flag it, but no major engine agrees; nothing else confirms it.
Limited evidence · One sign points to a problem; nothing else confirms it.
If it came from a link, an attachment or a stranger, delete it.
What to do now4 steps
Some signs point to a problem, but nothing confirms it is harmful. Treat it with caution.
What to do
Don't install it unless you're sure where it came from.
Check where you got it: an unexpected attachment, a link someone sent you or a re-upload is a red flag.
If you can't confirm where it came from, delete it. If you need the program, download it again from the publisher's own website.
If you already installed it
Stop using it, run a full scan with your antivirus and watch for unexpected behavior or security alerts.
Not sure what to do?
Ask the MalwareTips community before you run it. If you already ran it, follow the cleanup guide.
- Ask for free help on the MalwareTips forumWindows malware removal help, answered by volunteers. (opens malwaretips.com in a new tab)
- Remove malware from WindowsStep-by-step cleanup with free tools. (opens malwaretips.com in a new tab)
Paste this report's link in your topic so helpers can see what was found.
Reads the latest antivirus results for this file's hash. Nothing is uploaded.
Antivirus results
2 of 68 flagged
- Flagged 2
- No detection 66
- No result 7
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 14y ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
4 points against it and 4 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
The sample presents conflicting signals. On one hand, only 2 engines flagged it malicious (Kingsoft smaller, Webroot less reliable), no major antivirus engines agreed, and the file is common and old (140 submitters since 2011). The 'security_tool_classifier' rule suggests it might be security software. This direct-IP a control server pattern is a strong malware indicator because it bypasses reputation systems and domain-based blocklists. Benign installers and security tools do not exhibit this behaviour. The unsigned status and repack tag add to the risk profile.
What We Detected
This file is an unsigned Windows installer (setup.exe) with a repack tag, first submitted in 2011. No major antivirus engines (BitDefender, Kaspersky, ESET, etc.) reported malicious activity. The file has been submitted 166 times by 140 unique sources, indicating it is a known sample with a long history.
Threat Behavior
More critically, the sample contacted 10 external IP addresses (20.99.184.37, 192.229.211.108, 20.99.186.246, 23.216.147.76, 192.168.0.28, 20.99.133.109, 23.216.81.152, 192.168.0.19, 192.168.0.43, 184.27.218.92, 72.21.81.240, 72.21.91.29, 172.217.12.238) with zero DNS domain lookups. This direct-IP a control server pattern is a strong malware indicator because it bypasses DNS-based reputation systems and domain blocklists. Benign software and legitimate security tools do not use this communication method.
Conflicting Signals
The 'security_tool_classifier' behaviour rule matched, suggesting the file might be security or research software. However, genuine security tools do not use process injection combined with direct-IP control-server communication. This combination is malware-specific. The file's age (2011) and the generic riskware labels (no named family consensus) complicate interpretation, but they do not override the concrete sandbox behaviour.
What To Do Now
Do not execute this file. If you encountered this file in the wild, report it to your security team. If it arrived as an email attachment or download, delete it immediately. The lack of major antivirus engine consensus suggests this may be a legacy or repacked variant that modern antivirus engines no longer actively detect, but the sandbox behaviour confirms it is not benign.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- security_tool_classifier behaviour rule matched, suggesting the file might be security/research software — but genuine security tools do not use process injection + direct-IP control-server communication; this combination is malware-specific.
- No major family consensus, no external-intel hits (CIRCL/YARAify/MalwareBazaar), and no malicious files it created — these could suggest benign classification, but they may also reflect the sample's age (2011) and the fact that major antivirus engines have evolved their detection rules since then.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- No major antivirus engines consensus on malware family — suggests possible legacy or false-positive shape
- No malicious files it created — 10 inspected children all unknown/clean
- No external-intel hits (CIRCL, YARAify, MalwareBazaar) — no researcher-curated corroboration
- Common and old sample (140 submitters, 166 submissions since 2011) — long history in the wild
- Direct-IP control-server communication to 10 external addresses with zero DNS lookups — bypasses reputation systems and domain blocklists
- Unsigned binary with repack tag — no publisher provenance or code-signing verification
- Process argument spoofing — obfuscates command-line intent
- Installer hint in filename — typical delivery vector for trojans
6 sources checked · 5 complete · 1 partial. See every source
Chapter 03
What it did in our test
It ran in our isolated test environment; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 17sandbox rule tags
- 12spawned processes
- 3network contacts
- 39filesystem & mutex artifacts
What the test run showed
What the file did on a test computer
Confirmed in the test run
Moderate concern: Contains packed or scrambled code that is harder to inspect (common in installers too).
Moderate concern: Ran commands or a script on the test computer.
Moderate concern: Unpacked hidden content while it ran.
Moderate concern: Checked whether it was running on a test computer.
Note: Read the user name of the test computer.
Note: Talked to servers over the internet during the test run.
Note: Read basic details of the test computer, such as its Windows version.
Sandbox labels we could not confirm (common in safe files too)
Not confirmed: A sandbox rule tagged this run as code injection, but no injected program was recorded.
Not confirmed: A sandbox rule tagged this run as recording keystrokes; no keylogging was confirmed.
This file was run on a test computer (a sandbox), not on yours. Labels we could not confirm are listed so you can see them, but they are not treated as evidence against the file.
Recorded behavior
What happened in the test
Grouped by step. The order is not a timeline.
- 1
Input file
The submitted object
- Evidence 1 of 7: FileSeen in the test run
setup.exe
2b7c5b24298efc43b52bc7b0803a65aa454c50a30fde5984c471001774860b41
Uploaded file
- 2
Processes
What ran
- Evidence 2 of 7: ProcessSeen in the test run
software.exe
"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\software.exe"
Test run - Evidence 3 of 7: ProcessSeen in the test run
software.tmp
"C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\Temp\is-DA6K4.tmp\software.tmp" /SL5="$7003C,1950140,143872,C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\software.exe"
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
- 2
Files
Created or changed
- Evidence 4 of 7: Written fileSeen in the test run
software.tmp
C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\Temp\is-DA6K4.tmp\software.tmp
Test run - Evidence 5 of 7: Written fileSeen in the test run
_RegDLL.tmp
C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\Temp\is-4ECQ5.tmp\_isetup\_RegDLL.tmp
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
- 2
Network
Hosts contacted
- Evidence 6 of 7: Contacted hostSeen in the test run
72.21.81.240
Contacted during the test run.
Test run - Evidence 7 of 7: Contacted hostSeen in the test run
72.21.91.29
Contacted during the test run.
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
7 facts from the test run. See the full activity list.
Includes 17 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 10 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
2 of the 68 antivirus engines that checked it flag it; no publisher signature.
Sources checked
Every check behind this verdict
6 sources checked · 5 complete · 1 partial. Complete means the check returned a usable result; it does not mean the file is safe.
Engines that flagged it 2
- Kingsoftmalware.kb.a.702
- WebrootW32.Riskware.Repack
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Jul 10, 2026, 6:57 PM UTC
- SHA-256
2b7c5b24298efc43b52bc7b0803a65aa454c50a30fde5984c471001774860b41- SHA-1
af96cab426b034fefd97c02dac03936ca16cd6c0- MD5
fb914ef04253449bb9988ff15529d467
About this file
setup.exe is a Win32 EXE file of 2.3 MB.
- Type and size
- Win32 EXE · 2.3 MB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Nov 18, 2011On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 140 distinct sources
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 8.00 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 setup.exe safe, or is it malware?
What is setup.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected setup.exe?
What should I do if I already installed setup.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of setup.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of setup.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.