Scan report

InQuest / malware-samples

Vulnerability Low

Could an attacker exploit mistakes in this code?

18 risk score

Minor issues. Worth a glance, unlikely to be urgent.

High
0
Medium
12
Low
1

Sources: Bandit, Semgrep, pip-audit

Malicious pattern High

Does this code look like it is trying to cause harm?

62 risk score

Serious issues. Review the high-severity findings before using it.

High
32
Medium
0
Low
0

Sources: YARA, ClamAV, GuardDog, dependency checker

Findings overview
45 total findings
Likely real
0
Uncertain
18
Likely noise
27

The risk classifier rates every finding for how likely it is to be a real issue. Likely noise still counts, just much less.

What we found, in plain English

This repository shows signs of malicious activity rather than just poor coding practices, as it was flagged for high-risk patterns including process injection and anti-analysis techniques that are rarely found in normal software. While the overall vulnerability risk is low at 18.0, this score only measures common insecure code habits like missing error handling or unsafe loops, which do not necessarily indicate a threat. The most serious issues identified are YARA rules that detected specific malware signatures such as process injection and persistence mechanisms, along with suspicious use of the eval() function which could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code if input is trusted. These findings suggest the code may be part of a known malicious payload rather than safe, legitimate software.

Written by a local language model from the findings below. The risk scores come from the classifier, not from this summary.

Detections by engine

  • YARA 32

    Malware signature rules · Malicious pattern

  • Semgrep 12

    Pattern-based code analysis · Vulnerability

  • Bandit 1

    Python security linter · Vulnerability

Score over time

Overall score each time this repository was scanned.

Findings

Highest severity first. Select a finding to see the code and what it means.