BergssonForensics.
In this guide 01 / 7
FIELD REFERENCE 11 / REPEATED EXECUTION

Startup, tasks & persistence review

Examine automatic execution mechanisms without treating every startup entry as malicious.

Listen to this guide4 min / AI narration
Download audio ↓

Code, tables and images may need the written guide.

FocusGaming & screenshare investigations
Published13 October 2026
§ 01

Question & scope

Persistence examination asks what is configured to run again, under which account, and after which trigger. Game launchers, anti-cheat components, update agents, and peripheral utilities often install legitimate automatic execution mechanisms. Inventory an entry’s action, path, arguments, account context, trigger, and file identity before drawing a conclusion.

Autoruns can enumerate multiple startup locations. Task Scheduler provides another view of configured tasks. These tools expose configuration; they do not alone establish that an entry executed successfully during the disputed match. Preserve available logs and referenced files to investigate that separate question.

§ 02

What to collect

SourceRetain and examine
Startup entrySource location, configured action, arguments, and user context.
Task configurationTask path, triggers, actions, account, and relevant settings.
Referenced fileContent hash, signature information, and exact release context.
Execution sourcesAvailable task, service, process, and game-session records.
§ 03

Examination workflow

  1. Record the existing configuration before disabling, deleting, or running any entry.
  2. Use a documented viewer and keep complete paths and arguments, including environment-variable references.
  3. Resolve the target file and compare it with the correct vendor or project release.
  4. Separate task registration, configured triggers, and evidence of actual execution.
  5. Correlate relevant activity with session time, collection activity, and the applicable user context.
§ 04

Interpretation & false positives

A task’s name is a label, not an authenticated statement about its purpose. A familiar name can hide a changed target; an unfamiliar name can belong to a legitimate updater. An entry pointing to a missing file may be stale rather than evidence of current capability.

Configured persistence is distinct from use. A task can exist without its trigger firing, and an action can fail. Services and machine-wide tasks may run in a different account context from the player. Avoid attributing every automatic action to an interactive click.

§ 05

Worked scenario

Illustrative case / not a real player allegation

A task appears to be a launcher updater, but its action points to a user-writable temporary location. Collect the configuration and target bytes before classifying it. Examine file identity, installation context, and available execution records. Report the unexpected target first; explain the behavioral conclusion only if the evidence supports it.

§ 06

Report checklist

  • Configuration is preserved before modification.
  • Names and target identity are assessed separately.
  • Registration, trigger, and execution are distinct observations.
  • Account and collection context are included.
§ 07

Sources & further reading

The workflow and scenario are authored investigation guidance. Confirm source-system and parser support for the build you examine.