File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is myr-
A lone generic DeepInstinct detection is outweighed by silent major antivirus engines, a clean sandbox outcome, and fully checked contacts with no threat-cache matches.
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.
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
1 of 68 flagged
- Flagged 1
- No detection 67
- No result 7
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 8d 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
Only 1 of the 68 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this archive, using a generic result, while none of the 17 major antivirus engines did. One sandbox completed without a malicious result, and all four observed network hosts were checked without threat-cache matches; however, the mapping and very limited prevalence justify normal caution.
The antivirus pattern is weak: DeepInstinct supplied the only detection among 75 engines, and it did not identify a malware family. None of the 17 major antivirus engines flagged the archive. The completed sandbox did not return a malicious outcome, although it mapped possible process injection to without recording an injected target or method. All two domains and two IP addresses observed during execution were covered by the host-reputation check, with no malicious or suspicious matches. Malware-specific research rules, a known malicious child, and family-level external corroboration were also absent. Because the archive is with only two submissions, confidence remains moderate rather than high.
What We Detected
DeepInstinct was the only engine among 75 to flag the archive, and its generic “MALICIOUS” result did not name a threat family. None of the 17 major antivirus engines flagged it, and no malware-specific research rule or known malware repository match corroborated the alert.
Threat Behavior
One sandbox run completed without a malicious outcome. It mapped possible process injection to MITRE T1055, but captured no injected process, target, or exact technique, so that mapping is not conclusive by itself. The host-reputation check covered both contacted domains and both contacted IP addresses; none matched the malicious or suspicious cache. Ten extracted children were inspected, but none has a saved child verdict, so they provide no affirmative evidence either way.
What To Do Now
The evidence favors a false positive, but the archive is and lacks established reputation. Obtain it only from the expected developer or distribution channel, keep security software enabled, and verify the archive hash before running the included installer.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- DeepInstinct flagged the archive, and that smaller detection cannot be dismissed solely because the 17 major antivirus engines did not flag it.
- Evidence from the test run maps activity to T1055, but no injected process, target, or exact method was captured.
- The archive is and rare, so its limited history leaves more uncertainty than an established download would.
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 17 major antivirus engines flagged the archive.
- The completed sandbox run did not return a malicious outcome.
- All four observed network hosts were checked and had no malicious or suspicious cache matches.
- No malware-specific research rules or known malicious extracted child corroborated the lone alert.
- The archive is with only two submissions from one source.
- DeepInstinct produced one generic malicious detection.
- The sandbox mapped possible process injection behavior to MITRE T1055, although no target or method was identified.
- The ten extracted files do not yet have saved individual verdicts.
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- 10sandbox rule tags
- 5spawned processes
- 2network contacts
- 15filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 10 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 10 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
1 of the 68 antivirus engines that checked it flags 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.
Engines that flagged it 1
The saved verdict treats these detections as likely false positives.
- DeepInstinctMALICIOUS
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 17, 2026, 2:21 PM UTC
- SHA-256
780f9dd41ac172348cfaf6bc5209f0c7b7aa30890edf36cfbcb7bab3ca8bc757- SHA-1
b8830ef89e8a20a2d6460aa06f2edf341504af33- MD5
0f89bad3c49f146e0a1979a0e54431c0
About this file
myr-plugins-windows.zip is a ZIP file of 31.2 MB.
- Type and size
- ZIP · 31.2 MB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Oct 17, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 1 sourceRarely seen: few people have submitted this exact file.
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 myr-plugins-windows.zip safe?
What is myr-plugins-windows.zip?
How many antivirus engines detected myr-plugins-windows.zip?
What is the SHA-256 hash of myr-plugins-windows.zip?
Is it safe to open or extract myr-plugins-windows.zip?
How up to date is this analysis of myr-plugins-windows.zip?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.