File scan report
Verdict Suspicious
Is gallery-
Three of the 70 antivirus engines that checked it raised generic or riskware alerts, but major antivirus engines stayed silent and the combined sandbox verdict was clean.
Read the whole reasonShow less
Why Suspicious? 3 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 run 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 ran 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.
Antivirus results
3 of 70 flagged
- Flagged 3
- No detection 67
- No result 5
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 9d 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 evidence leans toward false-positive detections, but it does not firmly establish the executable's origin. Three of the 70 antivirus engines that checked it flagged it, none from the major group, while five sandbox runs contributed to a combined clean verdict without a named injection target. Because it is unsigned and the bytes were not inspected by our static analysis, use only a copy verified against the official release channel.
Three of the 70 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the executable, including one riskware label and two generic labels, but no major antivirus engines detected it. Five sandbox runs contributed to a combined clean verdict and recorded no named process-injection target or other high-risk technique. The isolated mapping does not demonstrate injection because the associated artefact was absent. The executable is unsigned, and our static analysis did not inspect its contents, leaving its exact provenance unresolved. Two files built with the same import table previously received cautious assessments, although those matches came from different unsigned publishers and are weak context. Overall, the detections appear more likely to be false positives than confirmed malware, but source verification remains important.
What We Detected
Three of the 70 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the executable. Malwarebytes described it as Python downloader riskware, while APEX and Bkav used generic malicious labels; none of the major antivirus engines reported a detection, and no real malware family was identified.
Threat Behavior
Five sandbox runs contributed to a combined clean verdict. They recorded no named injection target, persistence indicator, sample-attributed network contact, or high-risk technique. A T1055 mapping appeared without the process artefact needed to establish injection, so it carries no adverse weight. No complete contacted-host reputation result is available, although the only recorded address was identified as analysis-environment background traffic rather than sample activity.
What To Do Now
The file is unsigned and its contents were not inspected by our static analysis, so the exact build cannot be authenticated from this evidence. Obtain the executable directly from the project's official release channel and verify its published signature or checksum before running it. Keep security software enabled.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- No major antivirus engines flagged the file, and the combined sandbox verdict was clean.
- The file name and format match a project that officially distributes a Windows executable, but this exact hash did not match a recorded release asset.
- The mapping names no target process and therefore does not show that process injection occurred.
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 flagged the file.
- Five sandbox runs contributed to a combined clean verdict without a named process-injection target.
- No malware-specific community rules or public malware-database listing matched the hash.
- The antivirus analysis found no packer or unusually high-entropy code.
- Three antivirus engines raised alerts, including one Python downloader riskware label.
- The executable has no verified publisher signature.
- The exact bytes were not inspected by our static analysis, so their contents and release identity remain unverified.
- The file was first seen on Oct 17, 2026 and has been submitted by 59 sources, which is not enough by itself to establish trust.
6 sources checked · 5 complete · 1 not needed or not applicable. See every source
Chapter 03
What it did in our test
It ran in 5 isolated tests; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 5isolated sandbox runs
- 15sandbox rule tags
- 3spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 30filesystem & 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: Checked whether it was running on a test computer.
Note: Listed the programs running on the test computer.
Note: Read basic details of the test computer, such as its Windows version.
Note: Looked through folders on the test computer (most installers do this).
Note: Loaded extra code modules while running.
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 contacting a server, but no contacted host was recorded.
Not confirmed: A sandbox rule tagged this run as changing how Windows loads code; nothing confirms it.
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 5: FileSeen in the test run
gallery-dl.exe
77c8f4c6808cf1044a54ec7187b548f5977f7c304d5432b63cf6cfdfe70ffc12
Uploaded file
- 2
Processes
What ran
- Evidence 2 of 5: ProcessSeen in the test run
software.exe
"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\software.exe"
Test run - Evidence 3 of 5: ProcessSeen in the test run
77c8f4c6808cf1044a54ec7187b548f5977f7c304d5432b63cf6cfdfe70ffc12.exe
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
- 2
Files
Created or changed
- Evidence 4 of 5: Written fileSeen in the test run
_ARC4.pyd
C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\Temp\_MEI52402\Cryptodome\Cipher\_ARC4.pyd
Test run - Evidence 5 of 5: Written fileSeen in the test run
_Salsa20.pyd
C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\Temp\_MEI52402\Cryptodome\Cipher\_Salsa20.pyd
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
5 facts from the test run. See the full activity list.
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 15 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 10 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
3 of the 70 antivirus engines that checked it flag it; no publisher signature.
Sources checked
Every check behind this verdict
6 sources checked · 5 complete · 1 not needed or not applicable. Complete means the check returned a usable result; it does not mean the file is safe.
Engines that flagged it 3
- APEXMalicious
- BkavW32.Malware.F0F6A51A
- MalwarebytesRiskWare.Downloader.Python
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 27, 2026, 12:03 PM UTC
- SHA-256
77c8f4c6808cf1044a54ec7187b548f5977f7c304d5432b63cf6cfdfe70ffc12- SHA-1
967f19a46ae6285fa287f2a8feafe7c985d456ba- MD5
910d481101fda7aee851febf1173192c
About this file
gallery-dl.exe is a Win32 EXE file of 22.6 MB.
- Type and size
- Win32 EXE · 22.6 MB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Oct 17, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 59 distinct sources
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 6.36 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 gallery-dl.exe safe, or is it malware?
What is gallery-dl.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected gallery-dl.exe?
What should I do if I already ran gallery-dl.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of gallery-dl.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of gallery-dl.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.