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
What this file did when executed
This file was run in a sandbox and its runtime behaviour was observed.
Sandbox verdicts
1- VT: CLEANclean
Techniques observed in the sandbox
7MITRE ATT&CK techniques the sandbox mapped. Highlighted ones are rare in normal software; the others are common in legitimate programs too.
- T1027· Obfuscated code
- T1036
- T1055· Process injection
- T1071· Application protocol
- T1082· System recon
- T1562.001· Disables security
- T1574· Execution hijack
Observed activity
Processes started
2Programs the file ran, with their command lines.
program.exe"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\program.exe"executable.exe"C:\Users\user\Desktop\executable.exe"
Files
5Files the file created, changed or deleted.
- Written
C:\Users\<USER>\.config\tacky-borders\config.yaml - Written
C:\Users\user\.config - Written
C:\Users\user\.config\tacky-borders - Written
C:\Users\user\.config\tacky-borders\config.yaml - Written
C:\Users\user\.config\tacky-borders\tacky-borders.log
Mutexes
2Named locks a program uses so only one copy runs; malware families often reuse them.
Local\tacky-borders-a6b83a75-bebb-46ac-b29f-ea9aa0855fa2\Sessions\1\BaseNamedObjects\Local\tacky-borders-a6b83a75-bebb-46ac-b29f-ea9aa0855fa2
Sandbox background — not the file
1The analysis machine's own processes and connections, recorded in every run.
- VM host
cl-glcb907925.gcdn.co
Files this sample writes at runtime
This file drops 2 children at runtime. None are currently flagged malicious in our cache. 2 have no saved verdict and were not checked; that is missing coverage, not a finding.
- 36c47665bc5da4ec97cc…b9bd3dNot checkedno saved verdict
- abd9fffe2f51ccf6e788…f1493bNot checkedno saved verdict
Chapter 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
Antivirus consensus
1 of 67 engines flagged this file
8 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-236 engines0flagged
- Low-trust15 engines1flagged
View all 75 engine results
- APEXMalicious: Malicious
- AcronisClean
- AhnLab-V3Clean
- AlibabaClean
- alibabacloudClean
- ALYacClean
- Antiy-AVLClean
- ArcabitClean
- AvastClean
- Avast-MobileNo result
- AVGClean
- AviraClean
- BitDefenderNo result
- BitDefenderFalxNo result
- BkavClean
- CAT-QuickHealClean
- ClamAVClean
- CMCClean
- CrowdStrikeClean
- CTXClean
- CylanceClean
- CynetClean
- DeepInstinctClean
- DrWebClean
- ElasticClean
- EmsisoftClean
- ESET-NOD32Clean
- F-SecureClean
- FortinetClean
- GDataClean
- GoogleClean
- GridinsoftClean
- huorongClean
- IkarusClean
- JiangminClean
- K7AntiVirusClean
- K7GWClean
- KasperskyNo result
- KingsoftClean
- LionicClean
- MalwarebytesClean
- MaxSecureClean
- McAfeeDClean
- MicrosoftClean
- MicroWorld-eScanClean
- NANO-AntivirusClean
- PaloaltoClean
- PandaClean
- RisingNo result
- 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
- ZillyaClean
- ZoneAlarmClean
- ZonerClean
Signatures and behavior heuristics
Low-severity pattern matches — worth noting but not on their own cause for alarm.
VirusTotal's sandbox summary maps this run to MITRE T1055 (Process Injection), but no injected process of the sample's own was recorded (the analysis VM's own WMI adapter, crash handlers and Chrome updater are not counted). VirusTotal maps T1055 on about half of all files no engine flags, so the mapping alone is not evidence of injection.
EvidenceT1055 (sandbox MITRE mapping)
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 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.