File scan report
Verdict Suspicious
Is Bldbrne-
Seven of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flag this unsigned executable with generic reputation and machine-learning labels only, while the combined sandbox verdict was…
Read the whole reasonShow less
Why Suspicious? 7 antivirus engines flag it; nothing else confirms it.
Limited evidence · One sign points to a problem; nothing else confirms it.
Hold off running this file until you know where it came from; if it is an installer you wanted, obtain it again from the developer's official download source. Keep your antivirus and Windows protection switched on while you check.
What to do now4 steps
Some signs point to a problem, but nothing confirms it is harmful. Treat it with caution.
What to do
Don't run it unless you're sure where it came from.
Check where you got it: an unexpected attachment, a link someone sent you or a re-upload is a red flag.
If you can't confirm where it came from, delete it. If you need the program, download it again from the publisher's own website.
If you already ran it
Stop using it, run a full scan with your antivirus and watch for unexpected behavior or security alerts.
Not sure what to do?
Ask the MalwareTips community before you run it. If you already ran it, follow the cleanup guide.
- Ask for free help on the MalwareTips forumWindows malware removal help, answered by volunteers. (opens malwaretips.com in a new tab)
- Remove malware from WindowsStep-by-step cleanup with free tools. (opens malwaretips.com in a new tab)
Paste this report's link in your topic so helpers can see what was found.
Antivirus results
7 of 71 flagged
- Flagged 7
- No detection 64
- No result 4
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 10d ago
Chapter 02
Why we think so
4 points against it and 4 in its favour, checked against the scan evidence.
The reasoning behind this verdict
Seven of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flag this unsigned executable, but every label is a generic reputation or machine-learning verdict rather than a named malware family. The combined sandbox verdict was clean summary, with no network contacts, no persistence and no recorded process-injection target, and no public malware database lists the file. Treat it with caution until its origin is confirmed.
This is a small unsigned 64-bit Windows executable, first seen on Oct 27, 2026 and submitted by only three sources, so it has almost no user base to build a reputation on. Seven of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flag it, but the labels are all generic: Avast and AVG report a reputation-based detection, a further engine reports a generic Artemis heuristic, another a machine-learning score, and one uses the Wacatac catch-all. No established engine names a real malware family, and there is no agreement on any one family between them. The runtime picture points the other way: the combined sandbox verdict was clean summary, the sample contacted no domain, address or URL, created no persistence or registry entries, and injected into no named process. The only files it wrote were updater log files under the local application data folder, which is what an application installer or launcher of this kind normally writes; the code does carry debugger-detection routines, a pattern shared with protection and anti-cheat software. With detections that are generic rather than specific, a clean runtime summary, no corroboration from public databases, and no verified publisher, the evidence does not settle either way — the file warrants caution rather than a confident malware label.
What We Detected
This is a roughly 600 KB, 64-bit Windows executable with no code signature, first seen on Oct 27, 2026 and submitted to us by three distinct sources. Seven of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flag it, but the labels are uniformly generic. Avast and AVG report a reputation-driven detection, Trellix reports a generic Artemis heuristic, Gridinsoft places it in the Wacatac catch-all bucket, and CrowdStrike and Trapmine report confidence or machine-learning scores. None of the well-established engines names a specific malware family, and none of them agrees with another on a family. The file is not packed, its code section entropy is unremarkable, and no bundling wrapper was identified.
Threat Behavior
The combined sandbox verdict was clean summary. During those runs the executable made no network contacts at all — no domains, no addresses, no URLs — created no autostart or registry entries, and did not inject into any named process on the machine. The only files written were updater log files under the user's local application data folder, which matches an application installer or self-updating launcher. The binary does contain debugger-detection code, a feature also common in protection tools and anti-cheat components.
What We Did Not Verify
No deep inspection of the file's internal code was carried out, so what it does in ordinary conditions beyond the sandbox runs is unconfirmed, and a reputation check of contacted hosts was not available. Because the engine verdicts are generic rather than family-specific, they should be read as a caution flag rather than as a description of a known threat.
What To Do Now
If you did not expect a file with this name — for example it arrived as an attachment, from a download link in a message, or from a site you do not recognise — do not run it, and let your security software handle it. If it is an installer for a game or application you intended to get, download it again from the developer's official download page and compare, so you know you have the vendor's build rather than a modified copy. Keep your antivirus and Windows protection enabled while you investigate.
Where this verdict could be wrong4 caveats
- The four sandbox runs returned a combined clean summary with no network contacts, no persistence and no named injection target, which argues against active malicious behaviour in this sample.
- Reputation- and machine-learning-driven detections such as FileRepMalware and Artemis frequently land on newly released unsigned installers that have almost no user base yet, so some of these verdicts may not hold up.
- The only files written during analysis were updater log paths under the user's local application data, which is what an application installer or launcher of this kind normally produces.
- A reputation check of contacted hosts was not available for this file, so the absence of hostile contacts could not be fully confirmed from that source.
These are the assessment's weak points. If you believe one applies to your file, report the verdict and we'll re-review it.
- The combined sandbox verdict was clean summary: no injected process, no persistence, no registry changes.
- The sample contacted no domain, IP address or URL during analysis.
- Files written during analysis were limited to updater log paths under the user's local application data, consistent with an installer or launcher framework.
- No public malware database lists the file and no malware-specific community detection rules matched it.
- Seven of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flag the file, including two well-known brands that report reputation and generic rule-based detections.
- The executable carries no code signature, and there is no publisher history for it.
- It is rare and was first observed on Oct 27, 2026, with only three sources having submitted it.
- It contains debugger-detection code, a feature also used by protection tools and anti-cheat software, which makes automated judgement harder.
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 4 isolated tests; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 4isolated sandbox runs
- 11sandbox rule tags
- 2spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 3filesystem & mutex artifacts
What the test run showed
What the file did on a test computer
Confirmed in the test run
Moderate concern: Contains packed or scrambled code that is harder to inspect (common in installers too).
Moderate concern: Ran commands or a script on the test computer.
Note: Read basic details of the test computer, such as its Windows version.
Note: Looked through folders on the test computer (most installers do this).
Note: Loaded extra code modules while running.
Sandbox labels we could not confirm (common in safe files too)
Not confirmed: A sandbox rule tagged this run as code injection, but no injected program was recorded.
Not confirmed: A sandbox rule tagged this run as changing how Windows loads code; nothing confirms it.
This file was run on a test computer (a sandbox), not on yours. Labels we could not confirm are listed so you can see them, but they are not treated as evidence against the file.
Recorded behavior
What happened in the test
Grouped by step. The order is not a timeline.
- 1
Input file
The submitted object
- Evidence 1 of 5: FileSeen in the test run
Bldbrne-VR.exe
cb57759138c644985c5ed7415b1786fa849dadaf343b5288b4bb2180e2ba02b3
Uploaded file
- 2
Processes
What ran
- Evidence 2 of 5: ProcessSeen in the test run
Bldbrne-VR.exe
"C:\Users\<USER>\Desktop\Bldbrne-VR.exe"
Test run - Evidence 3 of 5: ProcessSeen in the test run
Bldbrne-VR.exe
"C:\Users\user\Desktop\Bldbrne-VR.exe"
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
- 2
Files
Created or changed
- Evidence 4 of 5: Written fileSeen in the test run
velopack.log
C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\velopack\velopack.log
Test run - Evidence 5 of 5: Written fileSeen in the test run
velopack
C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\velopack
Test run - +1 more recorded observation
5 facts from the test run. See the full activity list.
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 11 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 2 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
7 of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flag it; no publisher signature.
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 7
- Avast (major engine)FileRepMalware [Misc]
- AVG (major engine)FileRepMalware [Misc]
- TrellixENS (major engine)Artemis!EA6518168651
- BkavW32.Malware.A1FF4C9C
- CrowdStrikewin/malicious_confidence_60% (D)
- GridinsoftTrojan.Win64.Wacatac.oa!s1
- Trapminemalicious.moderate.ml.score
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Nov 6, 2026, 6:31 PM UTC
- SHA-256
cb57759138c644985c5ed7415b1786fa849dadaf343b5288b4bb2180e2ba02b3- SHA-1
a3acad142e1d8ef2278e2b28cb4b8268be860b1c- MD5
ea6518168651adeb1183dce5b37b4c38
About this file
Bldbrne-VR.exe is a Win32 EXE file of 615.4 kB.
- Type and size
- Win32 EXE · 615.4 kB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Oct 27, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 3 distinct sourcesRarely seen: few people have submitted this exact file.
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 6.52 of 8
First scanned
Includes every engine result (75), 1 matched signature rule, PE section entropy and packers 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 Bldbrne-VR.exe safe, or is it malware?
What is Bldbrne-VR.exe?
How many antivirus engines detected Bldbrne-VR.exe?
What should I do if I already ran Bldbrne-VR.exe?
What is the SHA-256 hash of Bldbrne-VR.exe?
How up to date is this analysis of Bldbrne-VR.exe?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.