Is v4.23.682.zip safe?
Three of 75 engines flagged this newly observed ZIP, with ESET-NOD32 and Varist naming WinGo, but runtime and strong consensus evidence are absent.
ESET-NOD32 and Varist independently associate the archive with WinGo, while Google also detects it generically. However, only one tier-1 engine flagged it, most tier-1 products were silent, and no runtime analysis or complete contacted-host check is available, leaving materially mixed evidence.
b6794184f1d4db6f70…fc89d8230015b4Recommended next actions
Before opening or extracting
Do not open or extract it until the source can be verified independently.
If you already opened or extracted it
Stop using it, scan the device, and watch for unexpected behavior or security alerts. Get a fresh copy from the original trusted source and verify its exact hash when possible.
Intelligence
The saved assessment, checked against the scan evidence and recorded coverage.
The reasoning behind this verdict
This section explains the evidence supporting the verdict and keeps conflicting or missing signals visible.
ESET-NOD32 and Varist independently associate the archive with WinGo, while Google also detects it generically. However, only one tier-1 engine flagged it, most tier-1 products were silent, and no runtime analysis or complete contacted-host check is available, leaving materially mixed evidence.
Three of 75 engines detected the archive, and two independently used the WinGo family name. ESET-NOD32 supplies the only tier-1 detection, while 16 other tier-1 engines did not flag the sample, so there is no strong high-trust consensus. The file is newly observed with just one submission, which limits reputation-based reassurance. No completed runtime observation is available, and contacted-host reputation was not checked or saved. Researcher-rule and malware-repository checks returned no corroborating hit, while file-type-only historical matches add little certainty.
What We Detected
Three of 75 antivirus engines flagged the ZIP. ESET-NOD32 identified WinGo/GenKryptik.HUIK, Varist reported a WinGo variant, and Google returned a generic detection. ESET-NOD32 is the sole tier-1 detector; 16 other tier-1 engines did not flag the archive.
Threat Behavior
No completed sandbox observation is available, so execution behavior, persistence, payload extraction, and network activity could not be assessed. A complete reputation check for contacted hosts is also unavailable. The archive is newly observed and has only one recorded submission, while external researcher rules and malware-repository intelligence provide no corroborating match.
What To Do Now
Do not open or extract the archive on a production system unless its source and expected contents can be independently verified. Keep endpoint protection enabled, obtain the file again from the publisher's official channel if possible, and inspect extracted contents in an isolated environment before use.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- 16 of 17 reporting tier-1 engines did not flag the archive, including BitDefender, Kaspersky, Avast, Avira, and Fortinet.
- externalIntel.malwareBazaar.hit=false and externalIntel.yaraify.ruleCount=0 provide no independent corroboration, although absence of a hit does not establish benignness.
- The similarHashes entries are file-type-only matches, so their prior outcomes are weak evidence about this exact archive.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- 16 of 17 reporting tier-1 engines did not flag the archive.
- engines.tier1FamilyConsensus.strong=false.
- externalIntel.malwareBazaar.hit=false.
- externalIntel.yaraify.ruleCount=0.
- No malicious dropped child was reported.
- 3/75 engines reported a detection.
- ESET-NOD32 and Varist independently used the WinGo family name.
- The archive has only 1 submitter and 1 recorded submission.
- No completed runtime observation is available.
- No complete contacted-host reputation result is available.
Avoid opening or extracting the ZIP until its origin and contents are verified through an official source. Keep security protection enabled and use an isolated analysis environment if inspection is necessary.
Coverage & freshness
Complete means the check returned a usable result. It does not mean the file is safe.
Antivirus
Complete3 of 75 engines flagged the file.
Sandbox
PartialRuntime data is present, but no completed sandbox environment is recorded.
Network
Not runNo contacted-host reputation check is recorded.
No timestamp recordedYARA
CompleteRule evaluation completed with no recorded matches.
External intel
Complete3 of 3 independent reference sources completed.
Behavior
Plain-English impact first, then the observed runtime evidence.
Runtime behavior was not available
The report does not treat a missing runtime observation as a clean result.
Detection & Forensics
Consensus, attribution, signatures, code structure, prevalence, and identity.
Evidence integrity
Chain of custody for the facts preserved in this report.
- 0rule hits recorded
- 3 / 75engines flagged
- 1sources in submission history
Why these facts are shown
Each statement identifies whether it was directly recorded or derived from saved scan facts.
- 01
3 of 75 antivirus engines flagged the file, including ESET-NOD32 and Google.
Verdict inputView chapterProvenanceObservedSourceAntivirus analysisObserved at - 02
The hash has been submitted 1 time from 1 source.
ProvenanceDerivedSourceSaved report factsObserved at
Detection sources at a glance
Category: generic-trojan
MalwareBazaar, YARAify, and CIRCL hashlookup completed and returned no entries for this hash.
YARA rules
No matchesThe rule pass completed without a saved public match.
3 of 75 engines flagged this file
View all 75 engine results
PE structure
Not applicablePE structure analysis applies to Windows executable formats, not this file type.
How widely this file has been seen
Barely seen in the wild and first surfaced recently. 3 antivirus detections make that low prevalence materially relevant, but rarity alone is not proof of malware.
Fingerprint and provenance
- File name
- v4.23.682.zip
- Format
- ZIP
- Code signing
- Not applicable to this file type
- Size
- 89.6 MB
- Last analyzed
- Oct 5, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC
b6794184f1d4db6f70d3e6f0f95ad2b4ba803df39339f802acfc89d8230015b4Safety & FAQ
Complete recovery guidance and answers for the next decision.
What to do now
We couldn't fully clear this file. Treat it with caution.
- Recovery step 01
Don't open or extract it unless you're certain it came from a source you trust.
- Recovery step 02
Check where you got it — an unexpected attachment or a random download link is a red flag.
- Recovery step 03
If its origin cannot be confirmed, delete this archive and use a fresh copy from a trusted source. Get a fresh copy from the original trusted source and verify its exact hash when possible.
- Recovery step 04
If you're still unsure, scan it again in a day or two — detections often catch up on newer files.
Safety FAQ
Direct answers grounded in the saved verdict and evidence in this report.
Is v4.23.682.zip safe, or is it malware?
What is v4.23.682.zip?
How many antivirus engines detected v4.23.682.zip?
What should I do if I already opened or extracted v4.23.682.zip?
How do I remove v4.23.682.zip?
What kind of malware is v4.23.682.zip?
What is the SHA-256 hash of v4.23.682.zip?
How up to date is this analysis of v4.23.682.zip?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.