File scan report
Verdict Suspicious
Is gbg-
Only MaxSecure raised a generic alert, but one sandbox associated non-standard protocol activity with a dynamic-DNS-style host, warranting caution despite substantial…
Read the whole reasonShow less
Why Suspicious? One antivirus engine (MaxSecure) flags it and one sandbox test run rated it malicious while another found nothing.
Moderate evidence · More than one sign points to a problem, but nothing confirms it is harmful.
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.
Reads the latest antivirus results for this file's hash. Nothing is uploaded.
Antivirus results
1 of 66 flagged
- Flagged 1
- No detection 65
- No result 9
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 1y ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
4 points against it and 5 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
The antivirus result alone resembles a false positive: only 1 of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, and no major antivirus engines agreed. However, one sandbox returned a malicious assessment and mapped non-standard protocol activity involving a dynamic-DNS-style domain, while another sandbox was clean, leaving materially mixed evidence.
MaxSecure was the only engine to flag the sample, using a generic trojan label, while 15 major antivirus engines reported no detection. That static pattern usually indicates a false positive rather than a confirmed family. Evidence from the test run is less reassuring because one sandbox returned a malicious assessment and mapped after the executable contacted a dynamic-DNS-style host. The other sandbox returned clean, and none of the three observed hosts matched the malicious or suspicious URL cache. No malware-specific YARA rules, known malicious files it created, or external family identification corroborate the concern. The combination supports caution without establishing a named threat.
What We Detected
Only 1 of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the executable. The alert came from MaxSecure and used the generic label Trojan.Malware.300983.susgen; no major antivirus engines detected it, and no malware family consensus formed.
Threat Behavior
Two sandbox runs disagreed: one returned a malicious assessment and the other returned clean. The concerning run mapped T1571, indicating possible communication through a non-standard application-layer protocol, after contact with gbgrecs.servegame.com. All three distinct observed hosts were reputation-checked, with no malicious or suspicious cache matches. The executable created no recorded persistence, injected into no listed process, and dropped no file it created requiring separate assessment.
What To Do Now
Do not run the file on a production or sensitive system until its origin and intended server are verified. If testing is necessary, keep security software enabled and use an isolated environment with network monitoring.
Where this verdict could be wrong4 caveats
- The sole antivirus detection is a generic less reliable label, while 15 major antivirus engines reported no detection.
- The second sandbox run returned clean, so the malicious runtime assessment was not reproduced.
- None of the three observed hosts matched the malicious or suspicious URL cache.
- A community annotation reported a DynDNS-domain rule-based match, but it is a generic infrastructure rule rather than a malware-family identification.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- Only 1 of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it raised an alert, and it was a generic less reliable detection.
- Fifteen major antivirus engines reported no detection.
- A second sandbox run returned clean.
- All three observed hosts were checked without a malicious or suspicious reputation match.
- No malware-specific YARA rule, known malicious child, packing indicator, or external family match was found.
- One sandbox returned a malicious assessment.
- The executable used behavior associated with a non-standard application-layer protocol.
- The sample contacted a dynamic-DNS-style domain, an infrastructure pattern that can be abused for changing server addresses.
- The Windows executable is unsigned and has no established publisher history.
6 sources checked · all complete. See every source
Chapter 03
What it did in our test
It ran in our isolated test environment; 1 test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 6sandbox rule tags
- 2spawned processes
- 2network contacts
- 5filesystem & mutex artifacts
What the test run showed
What the file did on a test computer
Confirmed in the test run
Moderate concern: Downloaded a file during the test run.
Moderate concern: Hid files or windows on the test computer.
Moderate concern: Contacted a server on an unusual network port.
Note: Talked to servers over the internet during the test run.
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 6: FileSeen in the test run
gbg-spec-client.exe
8e58bcd934697a7265b3b7aedaa007a1918195c447d2b704a0efb4d9c924444d
Uploaded file
- 2
Processes
What ran
- Evidence 2 of 6: ProcessSeen in the test run
gbg-spec-client.exe
"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\gbg-spec-client.exe"
Test run - Evidence 3 of 6: ProcessSeen in the test run
gbg-spec-client.exe
"C:\Users\user\Desktop\gbg-spec-client.exe"
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
- 1
Files
Created or changed
- Evidence 4 of 6: Written fileSeen in the test run
Logs
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows Security Health\Logs
Test run
- 2
Network
Hosts contacted
- Evidence 5 of 6: Contacted hostSeen in the test run
gbgrecs.servegame.com
Contacted during the test run.
Test run - Evidence 6 of 6: Contacted hostSeen in the test run
185.105.89.245
Contacted during the test run.
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
6 facts from the test run. See the full activity list.
What this file did when executed
The combined sandbox summary is split: at least one run returned "malicious" and another returned "clean".
Sandbox verdicts
2- VT: MALWAREmalicious
- VT: CLEANclean
Techniques observed in the sandbox
6MITRE ATT&CK techniques the sandbox mapped. Highlighted ones are rare in normal software; the others are common in legitimate programs too.
- T1063
- T1071· Application protocol
- T1105· Network file transfer
- T1564.003· Hides artifacts
- T1568
- T1571· Unusual port
Observed activity
Processes started
2Programs the file ran, with their command lines.
gbg-spec-client.exe"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\gbg-spec-client.exe"gbg-spec-client.exe"C:\Users\user\Desktop\gbg-spec-client.exe"
Network contacts
22 hosts, listed as 1 domain, 1 address. Links show the host and path only.
- Domain
gbgrecs.servegame.com - IP address
185.105.89.245
Files
1Files the file created, changed or deleted.
- Written
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows Security Health\Logs
Mutexes
4Named locks a program uses so only one copy runs; malware families often reuse them.
\BaseNamedObjects\Local\SM0:3832:304:WilStaging_02\BaseNamedObjects\Local\SM0:3832:120:WilError_03\BaseNamedObjects\Local\ZonesCacheCounterMutex\BaseNamedObjects\Local\ZonesLockedCacheCounterMutex
Sandbox background — not the file
3The analysis machine's own processes and connections, recorded in every run.
- VM process
SecurityHealthService.exeC:\Windows\System32\SecurityHealthService.exe C:\Windows\system32\SecurityHealthService.exe - VM host
nexusrules.officeapps.live.com - VM host
8.8.8.8
Chapter 04
Technical details
1 of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flags it; no publisher signature.
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
- MaxSecureTrojan.Malware.300983.susgen
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 17, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC
- SHA-256
8e58bcd934697a7265b3b7aedaa007a1918195c447d2b704a0efb4d9c924444d- SHA-1
a90ab36b3e5724531c7fb0f4c4b5768e1f5ca3e2- MD5
57867bc3517d33ae4708b55c54f51ed2
About this file
gbg-spec-client.exe is a Win32 EXE file of 126.5 kB.
- Type and size
- Win32 EXE · 126.5 kB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Sep 9, 2025On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 12 distinct sources
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 4.44 of 8
First scanned
Antivirus consensus
1 of 66 engines flagged this file
9 of the 75 engines returned no result for this file (file type not supported, or the scan did not finish), so they did not check it.
- Tier-116 engines0flagged
- Tier-233 engines0flagged
- Low-trust17 engines1flagged
View all 75 engine results
- MaxSecureMalicious: Trojan.Malware.300983.susgen
- AcronisClean
- AhnLab-V3Clean
- AlibabaClean
- alibabacloudClean
- Antiy-AVLClean
- APEXClean
- ArcabitClean
- AvastNo result
- Avast-MobileNo result
- AVGNo result
- AviraClean
- BaiduClean
- BitDefenderClean
- BitDefenderFalxNo result
- BkavClean
- CAT-QuickHealNo result
- ClamAVClean
- CMCClean
- CrowdStrikeClean
- CTXClean
- CylanceClean
- CynetClean
- DeepInstinctClean
- DrWebClean
- ElasticClean
- EmsisoftClean
- ESET-NOD32Clean
- F-SecureClean
- FortinetClean
- GDataClean
- GoogleClean
- GridinsoftClean
- huorongClean
- IkarusClean
- JiangminClean
- K7AntiVirusClean
- K7GWClean
- KasperskyClean
- KingsoftClean
- LionicClean
- MalwarebytesClean
- McAfeeDClean
- MicrosoftClean
- MicroWorld-eScanClean
- NANO-AntivirusClean
- PaloaltoClean
- PandaClean
- RisingClean
- SangforClean
- SentinelOneClean
- SkyhighClean
- SophosClean
- SUPERAntiSpywareClean
- SymantecClean
- SymantecMobileInsightNo result
- TACHYONClean
- tehtrisClean
- TencentClean
- TrapmineClean
- TrellixENSClean
- TrendMicroClean
- TrendMicro-HouseCallClean
- TrustlookNo result
- VaristClean
- VBA32No result
- VIPREClean
- VirITClean
- ViRobotClean
- WebrootClean
- XcitiumClean
- YandexClean
- ZillyaNo result
- ZoneAlarmClean
- ZonerClean
Section entropy & packers
No high-entropy executable section or known packer signature was detected. Data and resource sections can still have high entropy without indicating packed code.
How widely this file has been seen
Moderate prevalence — neither rare nor common. No strong prior applies.
Chapter 05
Questions & answers
Short answers to the 6 questions people ask most about this file.
Is gbg-spec-client.exe safe, or is it malware?
What is gbg-spec-client.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected gbg-spec-client.exe?
What should I do if I already ran gbg-spec-client.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of gbg-spec-client.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of gbg-spec-client.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.