Is repak-gui.exe safe?
No antivirus engine detected malware, but the unsigned executable showed possible process injection and defense-evasion activity that warrants source verification.
All 75 antivirus engines returned without a malicious or suspicious detection, including 16 tier-1 engines reporting no detection. However, one sandbox run mapped activity to process injection and possible defense impairment, while network reputation coverage and child-file classification were incomplete, so the file should only be used after its source and hash are verified.
c980bcb260536752f0…d1fd6aef8e6babRecommended next actions
Before running
Do not run it until the source and publisher can be verified independently.
If you already ran it
Stop using it, scan the device, and watch for unexpected behavior or security alerts. Get a fresh copy from the developer's official site or an official app store.
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.
All 75 antivirus engines returned without a malicious or suspicious detection, including 16 tier-1 engines reporting no detection. However, one sandbox run mapped activity to process injection and possible defense impairment, while network reputation coverage and child-file classification were incomplete, so the file should only be used after its source and hash are verified.
The strongest reassuring evidence is the complete absence of malicious or suspicious detections across 75 engines, including no tier-1 detections. One completed sandbox run did not produce a malicious sandbox verdict, and none of the three inspected children was identified as malware. However, runtime mappings to T1055 and T1562.001 are meaningful risk indicators, particularly because the executable is unsigned and recently observed. The host-reputation check covered only one item despite four contacted IP addresses and one URL, so the no complete contacted-host reputation result was available. Research feeds and static PE analysis add no corroborating malware evidence, making a false alarm more likely than an established infection while leaving enough uncertainty to require caution.
What We Detected
No malicious or suspicious result appeared among 75 antivirus engines, and 16 tier-1 engines reported no detection. The file is an unsigned 64-bit Windows executable first observed six days ago, with medium prevalence across 55 sources and 63 submissions. It was not identified by the available MalwareBazaar, CIRCL, or YARAify checks, and its PE sections do not indicate likely packing or unusually high-entropy code.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run mapped activity to T1055, associated with process injection, and T1562.001, associated with impairing defenses. These mappings are concerning but do not establish intent or a precise injection method, and the sandbox did not issue a malicious verdict. Three dropped files were inspected without a malicious child finding, although all three remain unclassified. The sample contacted four IP addresses and one certificate-revocation URL; because the host-reputation cross-check inspected only one item, no complete reputation conclusion is available for those contacts.
What To Do Now
Confirm that the SHA-256 c980bcb260536752f07a709db2a9fdb9bb03e3372b9b0da63bd1fd6aef8e6bab matches the developer's official release and obtain the program only from its official distribution channel. Keep endpoint protection enabled, and avoid running the file on a sensitive system until the source is verified or further runtime analysis explains the injection and defense-related mappings.
Where this verdict could be wrong4 caveats
- The executable is unsigned under signing.signed=false and was first observed only six days ago, limiting publisher and longevity assurance.
- The ProcessInjection heuristic maps runtime evidence to T1055, while T1562.001 indicates possible impairment of defenses; neither is corroborated by an engine detection or malicious sandbox verdict.
- Three dropped children were inspected, but droppedChildren.rollup.unknown=3 means they were not positively identified as benign.
- The DirectIpC2 heuristic cites four external IPs, and contactedHosts.inspected=1 provides only partial reputation coverage.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- 0/75 antivirus engines reported malicious or suspicious results
- No tier-1 engine detection; 16 tier-1 engines reported no detection
- No malicious sandbox verdict
- No inspected child was identified as malicious
- No MalwareBazaar, CIRCL, or YARAify hit
- Unsigned Windows executable with no established signer history
- First observed six days ago
- Sandbox mapping to process injection technique T1055
- Sandbox mapping to defense-impairment technique T1562.001
- Incomplete reputation coverage for four contacted IPs and one URL
- Three dropped children remain unclassified
Verify the exact hash against the developer's official release before execution, preferably testing it in an isolated environment first. Keep antivirus and endpoint protection enabled.
Coverage & freshness
Complete means the check returned a usable result. It does not mean the file is safe.
Antivirus
Complete0 of 75 engines flagged the file.
Sandbox
Complete1 isolated runtime environment contributed observations.
Network
Partial1 of 5 contacted hosts were cross-checked; coverage is incomplete.
YARA
Complete2 signature or behavior rules matched.
External intel
Complete3 of 3 independent reference sources completed.
Behavior
Plain-English impact first, then the observed runtime evidence.
Runtime flight recorder
Capture complete- 1isolated sandbox run
- 14MITRE ATT&CK techniques
- 2spawned processes
- 5network contacts
- 8filesystem & mutex artifacts
What this file does
Observed actions and their security significance
High concern: Injected code into another process, a technique that can conceal execution.
High concern: Used an input-capture technique that can record credentials or keystrokes.
High concern: Attempted to impair or bypass security controls.
High concern: Manipulated how the operating system loads code, which can redirect execution.
Moderate concern: Contained obfuscated or packed code that makes inspection harder.
Moderate concern: Communicated over a common application protocol; malware can use this for command-and-control.
Moderate concern: Communicates over the network in a non-standard way.
These are observed capabilities from an isolated analysis. A technique does not prove malicious intent on its own, and the file never ran on your device.
Attack story
Runtime observations grouped by analysis stage. Arrows organize the stages; they do not claim chronology or causality.
Input file
The submitted object
- FileObserved
repak-gui.exe
c980bcb260536752f07a709db2a9fdb9bb03e3372b9b0da63bd1fd6aef8e6bab
01Uploaded file
Processes
Runtime execution
- ProcessObserved
Observed process
"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\program.exe"
02Isolated runtime analysis - ProcessObserved
Observed process
"C:\Users\user\Desktop\program.exe"
03Isolated runtime analysis - +1 more recorded observation in Analyst mode
Files
Created or changed
- Written fileObserved
latest.log
C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Roaming\repak_manager\latest.log
04Isolated runtime analysis - Written fileObserved
character_data.json
C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\data\character_data.json
05Isolated runtime analysis - +1 more recorded observation in Analyst mode
Network
Hosts contacted
- Contacted hostObserved
185.199.108.133
Contact observed during runtime.
06Isolated runtime analysis - Contacted hostObserved
104.18.20.213
Contact observed during runtime.
07Isolated runtime analysis - +1 more recorded observation in Analyst mode
7 recorded facts from one runtime window. Every fact remains independently traceable in Analyst mode.
What this file did when executed
This file was detonated in 1 sandbox and its runtime behaviour was observed.
Adversary techniques mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK framework.
- 185.199.108.133
- 104.18.20.213
- 185.199.110.133
- 104.18.21.213
- http://yr1.c.lencr.org/127.crl
- C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Roaming\repak_manager\latest.log
- C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\data\character_data.json
- C:\Users\user\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\CryptnetUrlCache\Content\49A7F8B8A2FD8A9E65352CD7C88B1D10
- C:\Users\user\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\CryptnetUrlCache\MetaData\49A7F8B8A2FD8A9E65352CD7C88B1D10
- C:\Users\user\AppData\Roaming\repak_manager
Files this sample writes at runtime
This file drops 3 children at runtime. None are currently flagged malicious in our cache.
- 9e3db8a8735d5626722f…7c22feNever scannednever seen before
- 5bef060a478f8271a342…367a09Never scannednever seen before
- 8010ef8f59be34d63010…8c7691Never scannednever seen before
Detection & Forensics
Consensus, attribution, signatures, code structure, prevalence, and identity.
Evidence integrity
Chain of custody for the facts preserved in this report.
- 2rule hits recorded
- 0 / 75engines flagged
- 55sources in submission history
Why these facts are shown
Each statement identifies whether it was directly recorded or derived from saved scan facts.
- 01
1 high-confidence signature or behavior rule matched this file.
Verdict inputView chapterProvenanceDerivedSourceSignature and behavior rulesObserved at - 02
0 of 75 antivirus engines flagged the file.
ProvenanceObservedSourceAntivirus analysisObserved at - 03
The hash has been submitted 63 times from 55 sources.
ProvenanceDerivedSourceSaved report factsObserved at - 04
Scanned file: repak-gui.exe — c980bcb260536752f07a709db2a9fdb9bb03e3372b9b0da63bd1fd6aef8e6bab
ProvenanceObservedSourceUploaded fileObserved at - 05
Observed process — "C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\program.exe"
ProvenanceObservedSourceIsolated runtime analysisObserved at - 06
Observed process — "C:\Users\user\Desktop\program.exe"
ProvenanceObservedSourceIsolated runtime analysisObserved at - 07
File written: latest.log — C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Roaming\repak_manager\latest.log
ProvenanceObservedSourceIsolated runtime analysisObserved at - 08
File written: character_data.json — C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\data\character_data.json
ProvenanceObservedSourceIsolated runtime analysisObserved at - 09
Contacted host: 185.199.108.133 — Contact observed during runtime.
ProvenanceObservedSourceIsolated runtime analysisObserved at - 10
Contacted host: 104.18.20.213 — Contact observed during runtime.
ProvenanceObservedSourceIsolated runtime analysisObserved at
Detection sources at a glance
The available sources did not agree on a named threat category.
MalwareBazaar, YARAify, and CIRCL hashlookup completed and returned no entries for this hash.
Signatures and behavior heuristics
A community signature or high-severity behavioral heuristic matched. Signatures identify known patterns; heuristics are strong leads but are not proof on their own.
The saved runtime evidence maps this activity to MITRE T1055 (Process Injection). The mapping supports possible process injection, but it does not prove the exact injection method or the operator's intent.
Evidence"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\program.exe"The sample contacted an external IP address directly and no application domain was recorded. Direct-IP traffic also occurs in legitimate installers and infrastructure, so this is supporting context only and requires corroboration from host reputation and other runtime evidence.
Evidence185.199.108.133 · 104.18.20.213 · 185.199.110.133
0 of 75 engines flagged this file
View all 75 engine results
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.
Fingerprint and provenance
- File name
- repak-gui.exe
- Format
- Win32 EXE
- Code signing
- No verified publisher
- Size
- 19.3 MB
- Last analyzed
- Sep 12, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC
c980bcb260536752f07a709db2a9fdb9bb03e3372b9b0da63bd1fd6aef8e6babSafety & 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 run 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 file and use a fresh copy from a trusted source. Get a fresh copy from the developer's official site or an official app store.
- 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 repak-gui.exe safe, or is it malware?
What is repak-gui.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected repak-gui.exe?
I already downloaded and ran repak-gui.exe — what should I do?
How do I remove repak-gui.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of repak-gui.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of repak-gui.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.