File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is Crazy-
None of the 67 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this older game archive, and its completed sandbox run and fully covered host checks produced no corroborating threat…
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.
Open it only if you trust the person or website you got it from.
Keep your security software and system updates switched on.
No scanner can promise a file is 100% safe.
Antivirus results
0 of 67 flagged
- Flagged 0
- No detection 67
- No result 9
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 2y ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
3 points against it and 4 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
One sandbox run mapped two potentially offensive techniques, but it issued no malicious finding, identified no explicit persistence indicator, and the complete host-reputation check found no known harmful contacts.
The strongest evidence is the absence of detections across 76 engines, including all 18 reporting major antivirus engines. A completed sandbox run launched an installer-like executable, wrote game and uninstaller files, and did not return a malicious finding. It mapped startup-persistence and security-impairment techniques, but recorded no explicit persistence indicator or injected process, so those mappings lack behavioral corroboration. Reputation checks covered every distinct observed domain, IP, and URL and found no known malicious or suspicious host. The archive is uncommon and its ten extracted files lack saved individual verdicts, which limits assurance but does not outweigh the clean engine and evidence from the test run.
What We Detected
None of the 67 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the ZIP as malicious or suspicious. This includes 18 major antivirus engines reporting no detection, and no engine supplied a malware-family label. MalwareBazaar and YARAify also provided no family-specific corroboration.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run extracted and launched a Crazy Duck Hunter executable, created a Program Files directory, and wrote standard Inno Setup uninstall records. The run mapped T1547.001 and T1562.001, but recorded no explicit persistence indicator, no process injection, and no malicious sandbox finding. Reputation checks covered all 34 distinct observed domains, IPs, and URLs, with no known malicious or suspicious matches.
What To Do Now
The evidence supports ordinary use if the archive came from a source you intended to trust. Because it is uncommon and the ten extracted files have no saved individual verdicts, keep security software enabled and rescan the extracted executable before running it if provenance is uncertain.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- The sandbox mapped startup persistence and security-impairment techniques, although it recorded no explicit persistence indicators and issued no malicious verdict.
- Only one submission from one source is recorded, so prevalence provides little independent assurance.
- Ten extracted files have no saved verdict, leaving their individual status 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.
- None of the 67 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the archive, including 18 major antivirus engines reporting no detection.
- The completed sandbox run did not issue a malicious finding and recorded no process injection.
- Every distinct observed network contact received a reputation check, with no known malicious or suspicious match.
- No malware-family match was returned by MalwareBazaar or YARAify.
- The archive has been submitted only once, so it has little prevalence-based reputation.
- The sandbox mapped startup-persistence and security-impairment techniques, although no explicit persistence or protection-disabling action was recorded.
- Ten extracted files do not have saved individual verdicts, leaving incomplete file it created coverage.
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- 15sandbox rule tags
- 11spawned processes
- 34network contacts
- 30filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes 15 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 10 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
None of the 67 antivirus engines that checked it flag it.
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.
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 13, 2026, 4:48 AM UTC
- SHA-256
aaa67f01c592e553e2a96d45475c7c284d76382e4758b228a2068f68ac1ecba9- SHA-1
b009e3e48059d656f8f23969df703bec17912d1a- MD5
b35b1469b32e1bb7376553e7d3f4a52e
About this file
Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip is a ZIP file of 8.6 MB.
- Type and size
- ZIP · 8.6 MB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Apr 27, 2024On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 1 sourceRarely seen: few people have submitted this exact file.
First scanned
Includes every engine result (76) 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 Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip safe?
What is Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip?
How many antivirus engines detected Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip?
What is the SHA-256 hash of Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip?
Is it safe to open or extract Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip?
How up to date is this analysis of Crazy-Duck-Hunter_Win_EN.zip?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.