File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is md5sum.
Only 2 of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it raised generic alerts, while major antivirus engines remained silent and the combined sandbox result showed no corroborating…
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 developer's own website or an official app store.
Keep your antivirus and Windows updates switched on.
No scanner can promise a file is 100% safe.
Antivirus results
2 of 71 flagged
- Flagged 2
- No detection 69
- No result 4
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 1mo ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
3 points against it and 5 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
Two of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it produced generic alerts, but no major antivirus engines identified a threat or malware family. The combined sandbox result was clean, with no named injection target, persistence, dropped files, or sample network activity, making false positives the more likely explanation.
Only 2 of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the executable, and both labels were generic rather than family-specific. None of the 18 major antivirus engines reported a detection. The combined sandbox verdict was clean, and the runs recorded no named injection target, persistence, dropped files, or sample network contacts. The mapping lacked the target needed to establish actual process injection and therefore carries no adverse weight. The file is unsigned and rarely submitted, so confidence is moderated despite the stronger benign evidence.
What We Detected
Two of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it raised generic alerts: APEX used a broad malicious label, while CrowdStrike reported a confidence-based label. No major antivirus engines flagged the executable, and no engine identified a specific malware family.
Threat Behavior
The combined sandbox verdict was clean. No named process-injection target, persistence mechanism, dropped file, or sample network contact was recorded. A T1055 technique mapping appeared without the artefact needed to establish process injection, so it does not demonstrate that behavior.
What To Do Now
The detections are more consistent with false positives, but the executable is unsigned and has very limited prevalence. Obtain it from its expected source, verify its SHA-256 value, and keep security software enabled while using it.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- The executable is unsigned and has been submitted by only one source, so the two generic detections cannot be dismissed with high confidence.
- Our static analysis was not available, leaving the file's code and capabilities independently unexamined.
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 18 major antivirus engines reported a detection.
- The combined sandbox verdict was clean.
- No named injection target, persistence mechanism, dropped file, or sample network contact was observed.
- No packing or unusually high-entropy code was identified.
- No malware-specific community rules or public malware-database listing matched the hash.
- The executable is unsigned, so no publisher identity can be verified.
- It has been submitted by only one source and therefore has little established prevalence.
- Two engines produced generic malicious alerts.
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 4 isolated tests; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 4isolated sandbox runs
- 3sandbox rule tags
- 2spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 2filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 3 mapped techniques and every process, file, registry and network entry.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
2 of the 71 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 2
The saved verdict treats these detections as likely false positives.
- APEXMalicious
- CrowdStrikewin/malicious_confidence_60% (D)
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 23, 2026, 9:28 AM UTC
- SHA-256
8cc85910a29163ab8f50a4969c326134bff71b050bf95e3f50bfb2b165cb78b4- SHA-1
6c59c53b20501fb2d6044d59c740e9413651289d- MD5
cef8083b3d08f4f08cb1b6c1be031d5d
About this file
md5sum.exe is a Win32 EXE file of 49.7 kB.
- Type and size
- Win32 EXE · 49.7 kB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Sep 23, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 1 sourceRarely seen: few people have submitted this exact file.
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 5.68 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 md5sum.exe safe?
What is md5sum.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected md5sum.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of md5sum.exe?
Is it safe to run md5sum.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of md5sum.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.