Is HolyEnchantments.jar Safe? JAR Virus and Malware Scan Report

[!WARNING] Final verdict available at the end of this report.

What This JAR Scanner Found

The scanner inspected all 521 classes in HolyEnchantments.jar, including 4,944 methods. All classes parsed successfully, and all 521 classes were sent through decompilation. There were no suspicious archive entries and only one decompiler anomaly caused by a complex method timing out during a pre-check.

The report contains 78 suspicious classes, or about 15% of the JAR. Most of these belong to bundled or relocated libraries, especially Javassist, Java-WebSocket, and SLF4J. The scan detected file access, reflection, class loading, HTTP, socket, and WebSocket APIs. These indicators can be normal in libraries, but the plugin-specific classes and the external WebSocket address require closer inspection.

Questions the Full Report Answers

Malware and Virus Findings

No high-signal malicious behavior was detected in the supplied report.

The scan does not report credential theft, password or token grabbing, process execution, persistence mechanisms, destructive commands, hidden downloads, or obvious data exfiltration. It also does not identify a malicious archive entry.

There are, however, network and filesystem indicators. In particular, the report references a WebSocket endpoint at http://client.hostflow.eu:5050/ws and a public IP-check service at http://checkip.amazonaws.com. The report does not establish what information is sent to the WebSocket service or whether this behavior is required by the plugin.

RAT Detection

The evidence is not sufficient to classify this JAR as a remote-access trojan. WebSocket and socket support can be used for legitimate plugin communication and does not automatically mean remote control.

The client.hostflow.eu:5050/ws endpoint is still an unresolved concern because it appears alongside filesystem enumeration and network code. The report does not show command execution, persistence, remote shell functionality, or a clear command-and-control protocol.

Suspicious Classes and Evidence

Core JAR or Mod Code

Class Severity Behavior Evidence
org.dimasik.holyenchantments.HolyEnchantmentsL10 Medium Reads files and enumerates filesystem contents Uses Java file, NIO, and filesystem-enumeration APIs in a(String)
org.dimasik.holyenchantments.enchantscore.EnchantsMap Low/Medium Performs file access during plugin setup Uses Java file and NIO APIs in its constructor

These are the plugin’s own classes rather than obviously standard library packages. File access may be normal for loading enchantment data, configuration, or plugin storage, but the report does not provide enough method-level detail to confirm the exact purpose of the filesystem enumeration.

Bundled Third-Party Libraries

Class or group Severity Behavior Evidence
javassist.* Low/Medium Reflection, class loading, bytecode generation, file and URL access Many classes use class loaders, reflection, URLs, or filesystem APIs
javassist.orgs.java_websocket.* Medium WebSocket and socket communication Includes WebSocket clients, servers, socket channels, and connection handling
javassist.ws.* Medium/High WebSocket communication, IP lookup, and filesystem enumeration References client.hostflow.eu:5050/ws, checkip.amazonaws.com, and file enumeration
javassist.orgs.slf4j.* Low Logging framework behavior and documentation URLs References normal SLF4J diagnostic URLs such as www.slf4j.org/codes.html
javassist.util.proxy.* Low Reflection and dynamic class generation Uses class loaders, reflection, method handles, and generated bytecode

The javassist.orgs.* naming suggests that third-party libraries were relocated or shaded into the JAR. Javassist commonly uses class loaders, reflection, generated classes, URLs, and file APIs. Java-WebSocket naturally contains socket and WebSocket operations. These indicators should not be treated as malware merely because the scanner labels them suspicious.

The more important item is javassist.ws.a, which combines library-like WebSocket code with a specific external service, an IP lookup, and filesystem enumeration. The package name alone does not prove whether this is an unmodified dependency or custom code bundled into the plugin.

Network Activity

The report lists these destinations:

The scanner detected Java URL, URL-connection, HTTP, WebSocket, and socket APIs. The public IP lookup may be used to identify the server’s external address. The WebSocket endpoint is the least explained network indicator because the report does not say what data is transmitted or why the enchantment plugin needs a persistent WebSocket connection.

No IP addresses were listed directly in the report, apart from the hostname-based endpoints above.

Deobfuscation and Analysis Coverage

The one anomaly occurred in javassist.orgs.java_websocket.d, where method private boolean d() exceeded a complexity guard. The method had short names and missing local-variable metadata, but the scanner did not report broad or heavy obfuscation.

Overall, the JAR was successfully inspected. The anomaly is not, by itself, evidence of malware.

Is This Minecraft Mod Safe?

This appears to be a Minecraft server plugin because the package contains org.dimasik.holyenchantments and the file is named HolyEnchantments.jar.

The normal parts of the plugin likely include loading enchantment data, writing or reading plugin files, and using Java libraries. However, an enchantment plugin would not obviously need a public-IP lookup or an external WebSocket connection unless it provides a licensing, update, analytics, remote status, or management feature. That purpose should be confirmed with the plugin author or its official documentation.

What Looks Normal

What Is Dangerous

There are no reported signs of credential theft, process execution, persistence, destructive activity, hidden downloads, or remote command execution.

What Should You Do?

  1. Confirm whether the plugin’s official documentation mentions licensing, telemetry, remote status, update checking, or WebSocket communication.
  2. If possible, test it first on an isolated server with no important credentials or data.
  3. Monitor outbound connections and check whether the server contacts client.hostflow.eu:5050 or checkip.amazonaws.com.
  4. Restrict outbound network access for the plugin if its features do not require external communication.
  5. Compare the JAR’s SHA-256 hash with an official release if the publisher provides one:
    0522d46b7bd48387d7d03ac7d3160990efe6e594c9767e1a7af67e8839638ef7

Scan Limitations

Static JAR scanning examines code structure and recognizable behavior; it does not prove that a file is completely safe. It may not determine what data is sent at runtime, whether behavior depends on server responses, or whether a legitimate library has been modified internally. Runtime monitoring, provenance checks, and testing in an isolated environment provide additional protection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a JAR file contain a virus?

Yes. A JAR can contain malicious Java code just like other executable file formats. This scan found no high-signal malware behavior, but a static scan cannot guarantee complete safety.

How do I check whether a JAR file is safe?

Check its source and publisher, compare its hash with an official release, inspect scanner results, review network destinations, and test it in an isolated environment. For this JAR, pay particular attention to the Hostflow WebSocket endpoint and the public-IP lookup.

Can this scanner detect a Minecraft RAT?

It can detect many signs associated with RATs, such as command execution, suspicious network control, persistence, and credential access. It cannot reliably identify every RAT, especially if behavior is encrypted, delayed, server-controlled, or hidden behind legitimate libraries.

Does obfuscation mean a JAR is malicious?

No. Obfuscation and short names can be used to protect intellectual property or reduce file size. In this report, only one complex method triggered a decompiler anomaly, which is not enough to establish malicious intent.

Final JAR Safety Verdict

Verdict: Use caution
Risk level: Moderate
Confidence: Moderate

Should I trust this JAR, and why? The scan successfully inspected the entire JAR and found no evidence of credential theft, destructive commands, persistence, hidden downloads, or process execution. Most suspicious findings come from bundled Javassist, Java-WebSocket, and SLF4J libraries, where the flagged APIs can be normal. However, plugin-bundled code references an unexplained external WebSocket service and a public-IP lookup while also enumerating files, so the network behavior should be verified before using it on a production server. I would not run it on a trusted server until that communication is confirmed as an intended feature by the publisher.