File scan report
Verdict Safe
Is Fizzo Cracked Again.
Only 2 of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flagged this DLL, both less reliable, while higher-trust engines and completed observations from the test run supplied no…
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.
Use it only as part of a program you got from the developer's own website.
Keep your antivirus and Windows updates switched on.
No scanner can promise a file is 100% safe.
Antivirus results
2 of 71 flagged
- Flagged 2
- No detection 69
- No result 4
- Code signing Unsigned
- Test run Completed
- First seen 15d 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
The two detections are generic machine-learning alerts from APEX and Trapmine; none of the higher-trust engines flagged the DLL. Completed observations from the test run showed no high-risk techniques, injection targets, persistence, or malicious sandbox conclusion, making a false positive the most likely explanation.
Only 2 of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it flagged the DLL, and both detections came from less reliable engines using generic labels. None of the 18 higher-trust engines that analysed it reported malware or identified a family. Three completed sandbox runs recorded no high-risk techniques, named injection targets, persistence, or malicious conclusion. Public malware databases and malware-specific community rules supplied no corroboration. The DLL is unsigned and not broadly distributed, which limits confidence in its provenance, but those weaknesses do not outweigh the strongly isolated detection pattern. No complete host-reputation cross-check is available, although the sole recorded IP contact was identified as analysis-environment background traffic rather than sample activity.
What We Detected
APEX and Trapmine flagged the DLL with generic machine-learning labels. That is 2 of the 71 antivirus engines that checked it, while no higher-trust engine identified malware or named a family.
Threat Behavior
Three completed sandbox runs showed no high-risk techniques, named process-injection targets, persistence indicators, files it created, or malicious sandbox conclusion. The recorded IP contact was background activity from the analysis environment, not activity attributed to the DLL. A complete host-reputation cross-check was not available.
What To Do Now
The detections most likely represent false positives. Because the DLL is unsigned and has limited distribution history, obtain it only from its expected source, verify its hash if one is published, and keep security software enabled.
Where this verdict could be wrong3 caveats
- The DLL is unsigned and has appeared from only four distinct submitters, so its publisher and provenance are not established.
- APEX and Trapmine both flagged it, although neither detection names a malware family and no higher-trust engine agrees.
- Our static analysis was unavailable, so potentially relevant code-level findings were not assessed.
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 higher-trust antivirus engines flagged the DLL.
- Completed observations from the test run found no high-risk techniques, injection targets, persistence, or malicious conclusion.
- No malware-specific community rules or public malware-database entries matched the hash.
- No packed or unusually high-entropy code was identified.
- The DLL has no digital signature, so its publisher cannot be authenticated.
- APEX and Trapmine produced generic machine-learning detections.
- The file has limited distribution history, with four distinct submitters.
- Our byte-level static analysis was not available.
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 3 isolated tests; no test environment rated what it did as risky.
Test run summary
Capture complete- 3isolated sandbox runs
- 13sandbox rule tags
- 7spawned processes
- 0network contacts
- 1filesystem & mutex artifacts
Includes the sandbox verdicts, 13 mapped techniques and every process, file, registry and network entry.
Show the technical evidenceChapter 04
Technical details
2 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 2
The saved verdict treats these detections as likely false positives.
- APEXMalicious
- Trapminemalicious.moderate.ml.score
File fingerprint
- Last analyzed
- Oct 20, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC
- SHA-256
f82917f0c28ffc4a44d34aa410ad48471d00321b1dff8b9046e003e4aeb7aa76- SHA-1
3f62b796c330e38871873fd3e25071c33eb14a25- MD5
0cfb4926fc81b1313e8607f380f1db5a
About this file
Fizzo Cracked Again.dll is a Win32 DLL file of 18.3 MB.
- Type and size
- Win32 DLL · 18.3 MB
- Signer
- UnsignedNo code signature.
- First seen
- Oct 10, 2026On VirusTotal.
- Submitted by
- 4 distinct sourcesRarely seen: few people have submitted this exact file.
- Packer
- None detected
- Entropy
- 5.57 of 8
First scanned
Includes every engine result (75), 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 Fizzo Cracked Again.dll safe?
What is Fizzo Cracked Again.dll?
How many antivirus engines detected Fizzo Cracked Again.dll?
What is the SHA-256 hash of Fizzo Cracked Again.dll?
Is it safe to use Fizzo Cracked Again.dll?
How up to date is this analysis of Fizzo Cracked Again.dll?
Community
Member reviews and reports for this exact file hash.