File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is tacky-
Only APEX flagged the executable among 75 engines, while major antivirus engines stayed silent and the completed sandbox run produced no malicious verdict.
Read the whole reasonShow less
Moderate evidence · No engine flags it, but no publisher signature confirms who made it.
Keep security protection enabled and use only the project's official release channel. Rescan the unsigned executable after definition updates, especially before granting administrator rights.
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
1 of 67 flagged
- Flagged 1
- No detection 66
- No result 8
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 2mo 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
Only 1 of the 67 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this executable, and that detection came from less reliable APEX with no named malware family. A completed sandbox run returned clean, though its and mappings and the absent digital signature justify retaining normal caution.
The antivirus pattern strongly favors an isolated false positive: only APEX flagged the file among 75 engines, while no major antivirus engines detected it. The completed sandbox run did not issue a malicious assessment, and the one observed domain was fully covered by the saved host-reputation check without a malicious or suspicious match. Static PE evidence shows no identified packer or high-entropy code, and researcher intelligence produced no malware-specific rule matches. The main concern is the runtime mapping to and T1562.001, but no injected process target was recorded, so those mappings do not establish hostile intent by themselves. The executable is also unsigned, which limits publisher verification and lowers confidence. Two written files it created remain unclassified, but missing child verdicts are neutral rather than evidence of harm.
What We Detected
APEX was the only engine to flag the file among 75 engines, using a generic malicious label. No major antivirus engines reported a detection, no engine family consensus formed, and no malware-specific YARA rule matched.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run returned clean. It mapped activity to T1055 and T1562.001, but recorded no injected target process, persistence indicator, or malicious child. The sole observed domain was covered by the saved reputation check and had no malicious or suspicious cache match. The antivirus analysis found no packer or high-entropy code.
What To Do Now
Keep security software enabled and obtain the executable from the project's official release channel. Because the file is unsigned and two written files remain unclassified, rescan after antivirus definitions update and avoid granting elevated privileges unless required and expected.
Where this verdict could be wrong2 caveats
- The executable is unsigned, leaving its publisher identity unverified.
- Two written files lack saved verdicts, so their nature remains unresolved.
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 67 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, and the sole alert came from less reliable APEX.
- No major antivirus engines detected the executable.
- The completed sandbox run returned clean and recorded no persistence indicators.
- The fully covered observed domain had no malicious or suspicious reputation match.
- No packing, high-entropy code, or malware-specific researcher rule was found.
- The executable has no verified digital signature or established publisher history.
- The sandbox mapped activity to process injection and impairment-of-defenses techniques.
- Two files written during execution have no saved classifications.
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- 7sandbox rule tags
- 2spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 7filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 7 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 2 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
1 of the 67 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
The saved verdict treats these detections as likely false positives.
- APEXMalicious
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 17, 2026, 7:51 PM UTC
- SHA-256
9703842b4b834ccfa939237bdba753f3fab27e1755fd9fbd40a5a627db60dd67- SHA-1
33e2c7adfa045ceb8bb768e95d94cbf1bed67f9f- MD5
18e4ff1cb4511d578c3e53baf33b1d2e
About this file
tacky-borders.exe is a Win32 EXE file of 3.4 MB.
- Type and size
- Win32 EXE · 3.4 MB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Aug 2, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 29 distinct sources
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 5.95 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 tacky-borders.exe safe?
What is tacky-borders.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected tacky-borders.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of tacky-borders.exe?
Is it safe to run tacky-borders.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of tacky-borders.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.