File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is sydney-
No antivirus engine flagged this JAR, and its completed sandbox run returned clean, though several unconfirmed offensive-technique mappings warrant routine source verification.
Read the whole reasonShow less
Moderate evidence · No engine flags it, but no publisher signature confirms who made it.
Use the file only if it came from the expected project or a trusted distribution channel. Keep security protection enabled and isolate execution when provenance cannot be verified.
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
0 of 65 flagged
- Flagged 0
- No detection 65
- No result 10
- Code signing Not applicable
- Test run Completed
- First seen 1mo 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
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file, including all 17 reporting major antivirus engines, and the completed sandbox run returned clean. The sandbox mapped three potentially offensive techniques, but it identified no injected process, persistence indicator, malicious child, or malware-specific research rule.
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR, so there is no engine-supported malware family or category. One completed sandbox run returned clean and recorded no persistence indicators or injected target processes. Research feeds supplied no malware-specific YARA rules or repository match. Eight dropped files have no saved verdicts, and no complete contacted-host reputation result is available, so those areas should not be treated as fully cleared.
What We Detected
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the JAR, including all 17 reporting major antivirus engines. No engine supplied a malware-family label, and research intelligence returned no malware-specific YARA rule or repository match.
Threat Behavior
One completed sandbox run returned clean. It mapped T1055, T1543.002, and T1562.001, but no injected target process, persistence indicator, or malicious sandbox conclusion was recorded. The sole recorded IP contact was explicitly identified as analysis-environment background traffic, while a complete host-reputation cross-check is unavailable. Eight dropped files also lack saved verdicts, so they represent missing coverage rather than evidence of harm.
What To Do Now
Obtain the JAR from the expected project or distribution channel and verify its published hash when possible. Keep security software enabled and use an isolated environment if the source is uncertain or the requested permissions appear unrelated to the software's purpose.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- The sandbox mapped process injection, service execution, and defense impairment techniques, which deserve caution even though no injection target, persistence indicator, or malicious sandbox verdict was recorded.
- Eight dropped files lack saved verdicts, so their safety has not been established.
- Host-reputation checking was not completed or retained, although the only recorded contact was identified as analysis-environment background traffic.
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 65 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the file.
- All 17 reporting major antivirus engines were silent.
- The completed sandbox run returned clean and recorded no persistence indicators.
- No malware-specific research rule or malware-repository match was found.
- No file it created has a saved malicious classification.
- The sandbox mapped possible process injection, service execution, and defense impairment activity, although it did not identify an injection target or confirm hostile intent.
- Eight files created or extracted during analysis have no saved classifications.
- A complete reputation check for observed hosts is unavailable.
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- 16sandbox rule tags
- 3spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 15filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 16 mapped techniques, every process, file, registry and network entry and 3 dropped files.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
None of the 65 antivirus engines that checked it flag 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.
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 16, 2026, 4:02 AM UTC
- SHA-256
f023a37d7bdc5f55412b0b407607a5132012cfb1379605f981b7b342b55ac51e- SHA-1
6f1cda6f8884798aae28f3d46c455183b55ee3b5- MD5
adcb74704e866f233ee2a4c749424fda
About this file
sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar is a JAR file of 10.2 MB.
- Type and size
- JAR · 10.2 MB
- Signer
- Not applicable
- First seen
- Aug 28, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 18 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 sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar safe?
What is sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar?
How many antivirus engines detected sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar?
What is the SHA-256 hash of sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar?
Is it safe to open or run sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar?
How up to date is this analysis of sydney-loader+mc26.1-26.1.2.jar?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.