- #Ccleaner download warning this file may harm your computer install#
- #Ccleaner download warning this file may harm your computer archive#
- #Ccleaner download warning this file may harm your computer software#
Like Defender is capable of figuring out of if the executable can be opened as an archive and scan the files within it, SEP for example doesn't do that. It's one thing to just check if the application or file is signed and another if it actually goes beyond that and actually analyzes the file. You know it could be slow because maybe it's actually doing something too btw, just because the scan doesn't complete immediately doesn't mean it's slow, literally just complaining out of impatience. Um what? I've never had problems with Defender like that. Unlike other cleaners that ALWAYS managed to break something with their "cleaning". Cleaner is one if not the only cleaner that maybe doesn't clean the most, but never fucks anything up. That would mean they'd have to flag avast! as PUA (hello anti-competitive stuff) and Chrome coz that would actually be an accurate detection by their own definition.Īlso ppl complaining about CCleaner and questioning its capabilities. And they state if app that would otherwise be considered clean offers other PUA's. Not by Microsoft's own definition where they clearly state it has to be from same signer (sorry, but who pretends Piriform isn't owned by avast! at this point or are we gonna nitpick at signatures now?). If for some reason you want to allow it then whitelist it. No CCleaner itself is PUA, this is completely accurate classification of such software.
#Ccleaner download warning this file may harm your computer install#
That it took them several months to identify it, and Cisco Talos publicly outing the scale of the compromise, before they even 'fessed up to it and even then massively underplaying the actual impact it had was just icing on the cake.ĭescribing CCleaner as a "PUA" is totally accurate, especially as it's still distributed through third parties via a pay-for-install model which sees it bundled with legitimate installers of other completely unrelated software, usually flagged to install automatically (IE "opt-out" rather than "opt-in"). They bordered on snake-oil "make your PC faster by installing these unwanted applications" drivel even before they got their development environment compromised and malware served to literally millions of their users via their signed installers. People still use and trust CCleaner? Never trusted it and would 100% want Defender/ATP to flag it as PUA so I can remove it and say never install that again.Ĭompletely agree on both counts. Only matched by stuff made by EA quite frankly. I've never seen anything been so terrible for so many years while being done by such a big company. Just billion times better as it actually employs a white,list that actually works. Meanwhile universally hated avast! Free got Ransomware Shield from its paid versions that does the same thing. And this thing has been around since 1709 if my memory serves me correctly. They say it uses whitelist to allow clean apps yet it bitches on so many common apps I had to disable it.
We're slowly slipping into the irony zone Folder Access component is pure garbage. Also, is Microsoft just admitting that Google Chrome is a spyware or unwanted app since it's being bundled with CCleaner? Because only way CCleaner can qualify as PUA by Microsoft's own definition is if it is offering other apps that are considered PUA.
#Ccleaner download warning this file may harm your computer software#
"Software that is not signed by same entity." Everyone was tying AVAST Software and Piriform together when it was convenient for the bashing narrative, but suddenly they aren't the same company when you have to slam a detection on it.