DavidR
9
The problem is anal(ysis) reports like this are lacking in something, isolated from what the purpose of the file is for.
Whilst this kind of behaviour might be considered suspect, they are unable to put it into context.
You only have to look at the VT results to see many simply haven’t a clue what it is or how to categorise it. PUP would be one area as it is essentially a tool, but one that would have to be re-engineered to make it malicious and then it wouldn’t have the same MD5.
This is also why I asked the OP what scan this was as if it included PUPs in the scan it may have been win32:trojan-gen [PUP], but I didn’t get an answer to that question.