File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is ui_
None of the 64 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this JAR, and the completed sandbox run produced no malicious verdict or corroborated hostile network activity.
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 64 flagged
- Flagged 0
- No detection 64
- No result 10
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 9mo 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
Two offensive technique mappings warrant awareness, but they were not backed by persistence, process injection, malware-specific research rules, or sample-generated network traffic.
The antivirus evidence is uniformly favorable: none of the 64 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR, and no independent detector identified a threat family. Although it mapped service execution and defense-impairment techniques, it found no persistence indicators or injected processes, so those mappings are not independently persuasive. The only recorded domain contact was identified as analysis-environment background traffic, not sample activity. Malware-repository and malware-specific rule checks also produced no hits, while the six files it created remain unclassified rather than proven harmful.
What We Detected
None of the 64 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR, including the major antivirus engines, and no engine supplied a malware-family label. Research checks also found no malware-repository match or malware-specific YARA rule.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run produced no malicious verdict. The only domain contact was attributed to the analysis environment's background activity rather than the sample. Six written files it created lack saved individual verdicts, so they provide neither confirmation of harm nor complete reassurance.
What To Do Now
The available evidence supports normal use if the file came from the expected project or dependency source. Keep security software enabled, verify the SHA-256 against the distributor when possible, and avoid running unexpected JAR files from untrusted downloads.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- The sandbox mapped service execution and defense-impairment techniques, although it recorded no persistence indicators, injection, or malicious verdict.
- Six written files have no saved child verdict, so their individual status remains unconfirmed.
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 64 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file.
- The completed sandbox run issued no malicious verdict.
- No malware-specific research rule or malware-repository match was found.
- No persistence indicators, process injection, registry changes, or sample-generated network contacts were recorded.
- The file has been submitted 92 times by 84 sources, rather than appearing as a uniquely observed sample.
- The sandbox mapped service execution and defense-impairment techniques, though neither was corroborated by persistence or injection.
- Six written files it created have no saved individual classification.
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
- 4spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 13filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 10 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 2 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
None of the 64 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 10, 2026, 1:18 AM UTC
- SHA-256
8c92b1fa22603a2bf2f49ba9dd559857b4f42316c8f0efcd09d3a8cc3464a844- SHA-1
80d88b7abbff7fa06a2af9533bbd12ac1eb10f7a- MD5
c0d2321e3c647ba78029a0a62796ef73
About this file
ui_utils_2.4.0.jar is a JAR file of 75.2 kB.
- Type and size
- JAR · 75.2 kB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Jan 17, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 84 distinct sources
First scanned
Includes every engine result (74) 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 ui_utils_2.4.0.jar safe?
What is ui_utils_2.4.0.jar?
How many antivirus engines detected ui_utils_2.4.0.jar?
What is the SHA-256 hash of ui_utils_2.4.0.jar?
Is it safe to open or run ui_utils_2.4.0.jar?
How up to date is this analysis of ui_utils_2.4.0.jar?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.