Decorated Christmas Tree Live Wallpaper

AI Security Review

Evidence context: threat category none; evidence quality moderate.

The extension produced six findings, all of the same kind. NET-FETCH-js/background.js-63, NET-FETCH-js/background.js-82 and NET-FETCH-js/background.js-96 sit in the service worker. NET-FETCH-js/popup.js-39, NET-FETCH-js/sidePanel.js-362 and NET-FETCH-js/weather.js-49 sit in the interface code and the weather widget. That is the whole list. No malware signature matched, no obfuscation rule fired, no IoC matched, no dependency or secret finding appeared, and the manifest analysis raised nothing.

A network finding means the code reaches out to the internet. For a new tab wallpaper extension that is the product working. js/background.js has to pull the holiday scene down, and js/weather.js has to ask a weather service for a forecast. The file names line up with the store description: a decorated tree, animation, a side panel, a weather readout. Code that behaves differently from its listing usually leaves a trace in the shape of an unexplained extra script or a mismatched file name. There is no third script here, and every flagged file maps to a feature the description promises.

The gap is that the destinations are not recorded. The permission list and host permission list for this build came back empty, so the hosts behind those six calls cannot be named from this evidence. That reflects what was collected. A build asking for tabs, cookies or all-sites access would have shown up in the manifest analysis, and it did not.

A skeptic would push back here, and the pushback is reasonable. Six outbound requests from a listing published under an email address rather than a company name, with no endpoint resolution, is thin ground for reassurance. Wallpaper and new tab extensions have a history of injecting affiliate links and reporting browsing activity, and "live wallpaper" is a genre full of low-effort reskins. That is why this is not a clean bill of health. The one fact that would change the picture is the fetch targets themselves. If any of them resolved to a domain that is not the extension's own image host or weather service, the assessment would flip. Nothing in this evidence shows such a domain, because no domain was captured at all.

What is left is the same signal any extension that loads remote images and a forecast produces. The scanner is flagging the ordinary act of downloading a picture and a temperature. Treat the six NET-FETCH lines as a description of what the extension does, not as evidence of what it does wrong.

Key Reasons

• All six findings are the same generic NET-FETCH rule firing in js/background.js, js/popup.js, js/sidePanel.js and js/weather.js, with no second corroborating signal anywhere.
• The flagged file names match the declared features: a wallpaper loader, a weather widget, a popup and a side panel.
• Zero malware signatures, zero obfuscation, zero IoC and zero manifest-analysis findings for version 3.6.
• No host permissions or endpoint resolution were captured, so the fetch destinations remain unknown rather than known-bad.

False Positive Considerations

• NET-FETCH is a behaviour rule that fires on any use of fetch or XHR, including routine image and forecast requests
• No corroborating categories fired, which is the signature of a single-rule false positive rather than real malware
• Small user base and empty permission list give the scanner nothing else to weight

Reviewed 2026-10-18; recommended action: monitor; model confidence 72%.