File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is pitfall2.
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this archive, and no reference database, behaviour rule or naming signal adds any hostile evidence against it.
Read the whole reasonShow less
Moderate evidence · No engine flags it, but no publisher signature confirms who made it.
Nothing in the scan evidence indicates harm, so the archive can be used normally. Extract it to a folder rather than executing files from inside the compressed view, and keep real-time protection enabled.
Good practice2 tips
We found nothing harmful in this file.
Open it only if you trust the person or website you got it from.
Keep your security software and system updates switched on.
No scanner can promise a file is 100% safe.
Antivirus results
0 of 65 flagged
- Flagged 0
- No detection 65
- No result 9
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Not run
- First seen 6y ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
3 points against it and 4 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
No antivirus engine out of 74 flagged this ZIP archive, and the 18 highest-trust engines all returned clean. It has circled since Aug 4, 2020 with no public malware listing, no malware-specific detection rules and no suspicious naming or signer conflict. No runtime or archive-content inspection was available, so this is an evidence-based all-clear rather than a full contents review.
The antivirus picture is uniformly empty: none of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, and all 18 major antivirus engines returned clean results. Independent reference checks agree — the hash is not in the public malware database, no malware-specific community rules match it, and no known-good reference entry was needed to reach that point. The file has been circulating since Aug 4, 2020 and has been submitted 22 times, yet has never picked up a detection or a reputation flag. There is no behaviour data and no direct inspection of the archive contents, which is a coverage gap rather than a hostile finding, and the contacted-host reputation check was not saved. With no counter-signal anywhere in the evidence, nothing supports treating the archive as anything other than ordinary.
What We Detected
This is a ZIP archive of about 63 KB. None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it in our network flagged it, and the 18 engines we treat as most reliable — including BitDefender, Kaspersky, ESET-NOD32, Microsoft, Fortinet, Avira and DrWeb — all returned clean results. No engine produced a suspicious label either, so there is no partial or rule-based detection to explain away.
Threat Behavior
There is no observation from the test run for this file and no direct inspection of the files it contains, so behaviour was not observed at any point. The archive was screened by the engines' archive handling and nothing inside raised a signature or heuristic. The public malware database does not list this hash, no malware-specific community detection rules match it, and no reference-database entry flags it as known bad. The file carries no signer and no brand claim, so there is no identity conflict to weigh, and its file name shows no security-software, research-tool or installer pattern.
What To Do Now
The evidence does not support treating this archive as harmful. It is still an archive of unknown origin, so open it as you would any downloaded ZIP: extract it to a folder rather than running files straight from the compressed view, and keep your antivirus and real-time protection switched on. If you did not expect this file or do not recognise who sent it, confirm with the sender before unpacking, and remember that a clean scan of an archive cannot tell you whether the contents are the documents you were promised.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- Nobody examined the contents of this archive directly — no sandbox run and no byte-level inspection are available — so the engines' archive scanning is the only view of the files inside it.
- No digital signature applies to a ZIP and there is no publisher history to confirm where the archive came from, so its origin is unknown even though nothing was detected.
- The archive is rarely submitted (one source, first seen on Aug 4, 2020), so a low submission count cannot be read as broad community vetting.
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 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, and all 18 major antivirus engines returned clean results.
- The hash is not listed in the public malware database and no malware-specific community detection rules match it.
- The file has been in circulation since Aug 4, 2020 with no detections and no reputation flags.
- No brand claim, no signer conflict and no suspicious file-naming pattern was found.
- The archive contents were never inspected directly or run in a sandbox, so what the files inside actually do was not observed.
- There is no signer or publisher information to confirm where this archive came from.
- It has been submitted by only one source, so there is no broad independent community vetting behind it.
6 sources checked · 4 complete · 1 not run · 1 not needed or not applicable. See every source
Chapter 03
Technical details
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flag it.
Sources checked
Every check behind this verdict
6 sources checked · 4 complete · 1 not run · 1 not needed or not applicable. Complete means the check returned a usable result; it does not mean the file is safe.
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Nov 6, 2026, 11:43 PM UTC
- SHA-256
64f9e7d2040649f9ba696c19c1de565eeba8b6dc9d883797ae80c175317f6ae7- SHA-1
80ef769946e132b9c9ab1c2b4934686e03c917f6- MD5
aec6c60d2ab5ba69585f2544d14e6b38
About this file
pitfall2.zip is a ZIP file of 64.2 kB.
- Type and size
- ZIP · 64.2 kB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Aug 4, 2020On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 1 sourceRarely seen: few people have submitted this exact file.
First scanned
Antivirus consensus
0 of 65 engines flagged this file
9 of the 74 engines returned no result for this file (file type not supported, or the scan did not finish), so they did not check it.
- Tier-118 engines0flagged
- Tier-234 engines0flagged
- Low-trust13 engines0flagged
View all 74 engine results
- AcronisClean
- AhnLab-V3Clean
- AlibabaClean
- alibabacloudClean
- ALYacClean
- Antiy-AVLClean
- APEXNo result
- ArcabitClean
- AvastClean
- Avast-MobileClean
- AVGClean
- AviraClean
- BitDefenderClean
- BitDefenderFalxNo result
- BkavClean
- CAT-QuickHealClean
- ClamAVClean
- CMCClean
- CrowdStrikeClean
- CTXClean
- CylanceNo result
- CynetClean
- DeepInstinctNo result
- DrWebClean
- ElasticNo result
- EmsisoftClean
- ESET-NOD32Clean
- F-SecureClean
- FortinetClean
- GDataClean
- GoogleClean
- GridinsoftClean
- huorongClean
- IkarusClean
- JiangminClean
- K7AntiVirusClean
- K7GWClean
- KasperskyClean
- KingsoftClean
- LionicClean
- MalwarebytesClean
- MaxSecureClean
- McAfeeDClean
- MicrosoftClean
- MicroWorld-eScanClean
- NANO-AntivirusClean
- PaloaltoNo result
- PandaClean
- RisingClean
- SangforClean
- SentinelOneNo result
- SkyhighClean
- SophosClean
- SUPERAntiSpywareClean
- SymantecClean
- SymantecMobileInsightNo result
- TACHYONClean
- tehtrisNo result
- TencentClean
- TrellixENSClean
- TrendMicroClean
- TrendMicro-HouseCallClean
- TrustlookClean
- VaristClean
- VBA32Clean
- VIPREClean
- VirITClean
- ViRobotClean
- WebrootClean
- XcitiumClean
- YandexClean
- ZillyaClean
- ZoneAlarmClean
- ZonerClean
How widely this file has been seen
Rarely uploaded, and first seen more than two weeks ago. Often niche legitimate software or internal tooling; not a strong malware signal on its own.
Chapter 04
Questions & answers
Short answers to the 6 questions people ask most about this file.
Is pitfall2.zip safe?
What is pitfall2.zip?
How many antivirus engines detected pitfall2.zip?
What is the SHA-256 hash of pitfall2.zip?
Is it safe to open or extract pitfall2.zip?
How up to date is this analysis of pitfall2.zip?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.