File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is opsec-
Only McAfeeD flagged this published Java release, while major antivirus engines remained silent and the completed sandbox run found no malicious outcome.
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.
Antivirus results
1 of 66 flagged
- Flagged 1
- No detection 65
- No result 9
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 4mo 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
The single generic detection is isolated to a less reliable engine, while none of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it includes a detection from a major antivirus engine. A completed sandbox run returned clean, and the exact hash appears as an official GitHub release asset, making the McAfeeD label highly likely to be a false positive.
McAfeeD produced the only detection among 75 engines, using the generic label GenericY; no major antivirus engines agreed. The completed sandbox run returned clean, although it mapped and T1562.001. Those mappings are not conclusive because no injected target process was recorded and no persistence or network activity was observed. Independent intelligence supplied no malware-family rules or repository match, and GitHub lists the exact hash as a release asset for aurickk/OpSec. A complete contacted-host reputation result is unavailable, so the assessment does not rely on a claim of clean network reputation.
What We Detected
McAfeeD was the only engine to flag the file, assigning the generic label Trojan:Win/GenericY.JTJ. None of the 17 reporting major antivirus engines flagged it, and no named-family consensus emerged. The exact SHA-256 is also listed for the matching filename in the aurickk/OpSec V1.1.7.1 GitHub release.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run returned clean. It mapped T1055 and T1562.001, but no injected process target was recorded, no persistence indicator was created, and no sample network contacts were observed during that run. Host-reputation coverage was not available, so no broader network-reputation conclusion is made. Five dropped files lack saved verdicts and are therefore neutral rather than evidence of harm.
What To Do Now
Keep security software enabled and obtain the JAR from the project release page rather than an unrelated mirror. Verify that its SHA-256 is 999da53ce2c33e3a9690a63add35c13067b9b2a8a575a08e77209954e1d5fcae before running it, and use only the expected Java environment.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- The sandbox mapped process injection and impairment of defenses, but it identified no injected process and returned a clean run.
- Several community annotations call the sample njRAT or malware, but these unsupported labels conflict with the engine results, sandbox outcome, and exact release-asset hash.
- The contacted-host reputation cross-check was not available, so no complete host-reputation conclusion can be drawn.
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 17 reporting major antivirus engines flagged the file.
- The only detection came from one less reliable engine and used a generic family label.
- The completed sandbox run returned clean and recorded no persistence or sample network contacts.
- The exact filename and SHA-256 are published as an aurickk/OpSec V1.1.7.1 GitHub release asset.
- No malware-specific YARA rules or malware-repository record corroborated the detection.
- The sandbox mapped possible process injection and defense-impairment techniques, though it did not record an injection target.
- One engine applied a generic trojan label.
- The complete reputation of any potential contacted hosts was not checked.
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 our isolated test environment; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 13sandbox rule tags
- 4spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 11filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 13 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 3 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
1 of the 66 antivirus engines that checked it flags it.
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 1
The saved verdict treats these detections as likely false positives.
- McAfeeDTrojan:Win/GenericY.JTJ
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 17, 2026, 8:46 AM UTC
- SHA-256
999da53ce2c33e3a9690a63add35c13067b9b2a8a575a08e77209954e1d5fcae- SHA-1
7507cc56893785b964d737eed6ae3135a1b9dccc- MD5
3639de1d0ff5dda5ed3495b44acc529d
About this file
opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar is a JAR file of 491.3 kB.
- Type and size
- JAR · 491.3 kB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Jun 18, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 2,355 distinct sources
First scanned
Includes every engine result (75), 1 matched signature rule 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 opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar safe?
What is opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar?
How many antivirus engines detected opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar?
What is the SHA-256 hash of opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar?
Is it safe to open or run opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar?
How up to date is this analysis of opsec-1.21.11+v1.1.7.1.jar?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.