File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is Exodar-
No antivirus engine identified a threat, and the completed sandbox run lacked a malicious verdict despite two cautionary behavioral technique mappings.
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.
Reads the latest antivirus results for this file's hash. Nothing is uploaded.
Antivirus results
0 of 65 flagged
- Flagged 0
- No detection 65
- No result 10
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 5mo 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 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this JAR, including all 17 reporting major antivirus engines, and one completed sandbox run produced no malicious verdict. Two offensive-technique mappings deserve awareness, but they lack corroboration from engine detections, malicious hosts, file it created findings, or external research rules.
The strongest evidence is broad antivirus agreement: 0 of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it reported the file as malicious or suspicious, with all 17 reporting major antivirus engines remaining silent. One completed sandbox run did not assign a malicious verdict, and its only observed domain was fully checked without a reputation hit. None of the four inspected child hashes was identified as malicious, although their individual verdicts remain unresolved. No corroboration came from external malware intelligence or researcher-authored YARA rules, leaving the behavioral mappings as isolated cautionary signals.
What We Detected
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR as malicious or suspicious. This includes 17 reporting major antivirus engines, and there was no named-family consensus or hacking tool confirmation. External checks also returned no malware-repository hit and no YARAify rules.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run did not produce a malicious verdict. The sole observed domain, assets.msn.com, was covered by the host-reputation check and had no malicious or suspicious cache entry. Four written child hashes were inspected without a malicious finding, though each child remains individually unresolved.
What To Do Now
Use the add-on only if it came from the expected project or distribution page, and keep security software enabled. If its source or requested permissions are unexpected, verify the SHA-256 hash with the publisher before launching it.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- The runtime mapping includes and T1562.001, techniques associated with process injection and defense impairment, even though no malicious sandbox verdict corroborated them.
- All four entries under the dropped-file list have unknown verdicts, so the absence of a known-malicious dropped file reflects no identified malicious child rather than affirmative benign classifications.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- 0/65 engines reported malicious or suspicious results.
- All 17 reporting major antivirus engines were undetected.
- One completed sandbox run had no malicious verdict.
- The sole observed host was fully reputation-checked with no hit.
- No MalwareBazaar or YARAify corroboration was present.
- Behavior in the test run mapped to process injection.
- Behavior in the test run mapped to defense impairment.
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- 13sandbox rule tags
- 4spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 11filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 13 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 2 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
None of the 65 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 7, 2026, 7:34 AM UTC
- SHA-256
894fc0fdf6e598c10dce5a06764345a9e63ed61092fe0d5043fb84ca912a367c- SHA-1
5699cdac6401b52fd55cdc5dbcea2a03b24b0a04- MD5
6e4d632353bceca3f5e502ac675c8ebf
About this file
Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar is a JAR file of 69.0 kB.
- Type and size
- JAR · 69.0 kB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- May 15, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 15 distinct sources
First scanned Updated
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 Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar safe?
What is Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar?
How many antivirus engines detected Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar?
What is the SHA-256 hash of Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar?
Is it safe to open or run Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar?
How up to date is this analysis of Exodar-Addon-1.0.1-1.21.11.jar?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.