File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is Wurst-
No antivirus engine flagged this widely submitted JAR, and its single sandbox run produced no malicious verdict or confirmed injection target.
Read the whole reasonShow less
Moderate evidence · No engine flags it, but no publisher signature confirms who made it.
Good practice2 tips
We found nothing harmful in this file.
Run it only if it came from the project's own website.
Keep your security software and system updates switched on.
No scanner can promise a file is 100% safe.
Antivirus results
0 of 66 flagged
- Flagged 0
- No detection 66
- No result 9
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 21d 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
None of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, including all 17 major antivirus engines represented in the results. Although the sandbox mapped possible process injection and service activity, it found no injected target, persistence indicator, malicious child, or sample-generated network contact.
The strongest evidence is broad antivirus silence: none of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR, and there is no family consensus. The hash is but already appears across 148 submitting sources, which is more consistent with broadly distributed software than an isolated payload. One completed sandbox run returned a clean result and did not identify any injected process or persistence indicator. Its only recorded domain was explicitly attributed to analysis-environment background traffic, not to the sample. The and mappings remain cautionary signals, but they are insufficiently specific and are not corroborated by engines, external intelligence, or a malicious child verdict.
What We Detected
None of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR, including the major antivirus engines represented in the results. No named malware family, malware-specific YARA rule, or external malware-feed match was reported. The hash has also been submitted by 148 distinct sources, indicating broad distribution despite its recent first appearance.
Threat Behavior
One sandbox run completed without a malicious verdict. It mapped T1055 and T1543.002, but no injected target process, persistence indicator, or malicious file it created was established. The only recorded domain was identified as background traffic from the analysis environment, so it is not attributed to the sample. Nine extracted files have no saved classifications and therefore remain unverified.
What To Do Now
Use the file only if it came from the expected project or distribution channel, and keep security software enabled. Because this is a Java client modification, review its requested permissions and retain the exact hash before running it on an important account or system.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- The sandbox mapped and T1543.002, two offensive-use techniques, although it identified neither an injected process nor a persistence indicator.
- Nine extracted files lack saved verdicts, so their safety remains unverified rather than established.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- None of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file.
- All 17 major antivirus engines represented in the results were silent.
- The single completed sandbox run did not return a malicious result.
- No malicious file it created or persistence indicator was identified.
- The hash was submitted by 148 distinct sources, indicating broad prevalence.
- The sandbox mapped possible process injection and service-related activity, but did not establish a target, method, or persistence mechanism.
- The file was first observed only seven days before this analysis.
6 sources checked · all complete. 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- 16sandbox rule tags
- 3spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 17filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 16 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 4 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
None of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flag it.
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.
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 12, 2026, 11:30 PM UTC
- SHA-256
41c4414c2b7e10344e34ee94f78838b7e167abcbbef046dce4457889c8d85fa3- SHA-1
a0a065674e0bd4d8afd5faaad7133d39b0abc223- MD5
d7055412407480bb45a758c2d9a8707f
About this file
Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar is a JAR file of 1.9 MB.
- Type and size
- JAR · 1.9 MB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Oct 5, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 148 distinct sources
First scanned
Includes every engine result (75), 1 matched signature rule 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 Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar safe?
What is Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar?
How many antivirus engines detected Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar?
What is the SHA-256 hash of Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar?
Is it safe to open or run Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar?
How up to date is this analysis of Wurst-Client-v7.56-MC26.3.jar?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.