GeoffreyB
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GeoffreyB
-
-
No brouhaha here. I agree that uninstalling the old and re-installing the new is the proper procedure, if one cannot install over the old. However, some anti-malware products (especially older designs) can and will cause problems with installs.
Geoff
-
Truculent? How long have you been waiting to use that in a sentence?
No problem, however. Users of multiple anti-malware products are akin to MAC users who believe they cannot be infected. Discussions with them are impossible.
Geoff
-
I agree that you should not HAVE to turn off anti-malware protection.
However, depending on what anti-malware product(s) are currently in use, and how old/outdated they are, turning them off would be the first step for a long term resolution. If the install works, then it is one or more of the anti-malware products causing the problem. Having two or more real-time anti-malware products installed is a great place to start looking. Now, for all those who believe that if one real-time anti-malware product installed is good, then two installed must be better, take your discussion elsewhere.
Geoff
-
Turn OFF all, I repeat ALL, ANTI-MALWARE products. Then, do the install.
Geoff
-
The versions are the same. It is the support option you pay for.
Geoff
-
Hi! After cleaning, CCleaner 3.10 Windows Developer Preview 8 missing language bar of Windows 8, is removed from the Metro UI icon Control Panel, as well as an inactive menu Change User Tile! When will be fixed it? THX.
I see this type of question more and more lately - where users want support for beta products. If you use a beta product, you need to understand why you are using a beta product, and what to expect as far as support. It is difficult enough to support the released version of a product.
Geoff
-
frequently is a relative term.
There is no issue here. CCleaner is updated approximately every 30 days.
Why? An ever-changing world of browers and improvements.
Differences? Look here: http://www.piriform....iriform+Blog%29
Geoff
-
Rob,
Sorry if this sounds crass, but the only real blame here is on you for not having a backup. If you lost a few hundred MB of personal files, you can certainly look at Perforce and Piriform as the effect. But, the cause was you. If these files were that important, why did you not take the time to backup?
With today's disk cost, internal and external drives, and usb sticks, backups are fast and easy. A few hundred MB of personal files will fit easily on a USB stick.
Sorry for your loss. But, it is an important lesson, especially when playing with cleaners and beta software.
Geoff
-
If my posts make you laugh, why are you compelled to pour scorn on myself and unjustified criticism of VMware ?
Yes, I can see a big ego, but it is not mine.
Incidentally you claim to have been doing 40 years ago the same work as I did 30 years later, protecting Nuclear sites.
That is difficult to swallow since the Intel 8008 came one year after 1971.
Are you claiming that our Nuclear assets were protected my mainframe computers such as the IBM 360,
and that you played a key role in their deployment ?
I remember in the 1980's that Fire Alarm Annunciators could not be part of an approved system unless all light bulbs OR Light Emitting Diodes were duplicated.
It seems unlikely that an IBM360 would be depended upon for real-time protection of nuclear submarine sites and nuclear power stations.
I do not see how my views are insulting.
Software should be designed right, not thrown together and requiring a never ending stream of security patches.
I accept that they work long hard hours, I do not insult them for that.
I do not insult them for a lack of competence.
I merely regret that there was no decision for redesign and avoid the fundamental design error,
and instead every new symptom is met with a new work-around patch.
If you search the Internet you will find that what I independently designed for FUTURE PROOF systems to suit future requirements,
was also independently designed by others as a known technology.
I believe even the Internet message protocol places a message length at the start of the message,
and the message may contain nulls without causing termination.
Alan, if you would learn to read, and control your urge to argue, the answer is in my post. Clue: I did mention DEC and DG.
If you would like personal instruction on coding for such applications, from 40 years ago, just PM me. I'll see if I can fit you in my schedule. First consultation is free.
Geoff
-
Alan, it is pity that you never worked for Microsoft in their early days. All of their archtecture would have been blessed by you and error free.
There would be no such thing as bloat, except for your ego.
Let's see you write a modern day app, with all of the web interfaces, all of the bells and whistles.
Your comments on this forum are insulting to those who work long, hard hours, in an extermely competitive environment, to earn a living.
Why did I respond this morning? I was bored, and your posts always make me laugh.
Geoff
-
Thirty years ago I created in Assembler a small real-time multi-tasking multi-threading O.S. for intruder/fire alarms.
They communicated with messages in RAM between tasks in one 8 bit processor,
and messages between computers via 300+ Baud modems.
Never a buffer overflow.
The message always started with how long it was,
and a ACK/NAK protocol would pause the transfer whilst the receiver dealt with what it had already got.
When the first buffer over-run malware made its debut I thought that Micro-soft should have known better.
It is absolutely disgusting that all that was wrong with DOS has continued into Windows whatever.
I am able to believe that a mobile should be free of the constraints of DOS and not have any buffer overflow vulnerability.
Alan, what is concerning is that you actually believe in your imagined greatness. Forty years ago, I did much the same work. When you work on a small, specific, piece of code, such as you did, it is relatively easy to avoid problem, and perform an extremely detailed code-review. Dare I say that, 30 years ago, you never knew about ?buffer overflow?? I did much the same work on security and fire systems for nuclear plants. Very isolated systems, very well controlled environment, not a lot of bells-and-whistles.
When one begins to consider that the complexity of software has evolved greatly, from back in the early DEC and Data General days, and mainframes, and early PCs, one understands this problem (buffer overflow). Yes, there are ways (and should be more ways) to mitigate the problem. It is not just a Windows/Microsoft problem.
It affects every OS and environment:
Windows
Apache
Linux
Unix
OS X
Novel
OpenBSD
Blackberry
MS-DOS
PC-DOS
DR-DOS
IBM DOS
VMware
Etc., etc., etc.
It affects every browser.
It does not matter which programming language is used. It does not matter which DB product is used.
I ran a quick search on the articles from the SANS NewsBItes, for the last five years, on ?buffer overflow?. You will see that every product is affected. And, these were just the ones that were reported. Now, Alan, these are listed merely to show you how widespread the problem is, and that it is not a Windows-only issue.
SANS NewsBites Vol. 13 Num. 7 (January 19, 2011) RIM Warns of Blackberry PDF Distiller Flaw
SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 3 (January 8 & 12, 2010) MAC OS X, versions 10.5 and 10.6
SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 19 (March 5 & 8, 2010) Critical Flaw in Opera
SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 65 (August 13, 2010) Fixes for Opera and QuickTime
SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 84 (October 19 & 20, 2010) Mozilla Releases Firefox Update
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 9 (January 30 & February 2, 2009) Novell GroupWise Security Updates
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 10 (February 5, 2009) Multiple Flaws in Areva's e-terrahabitat SCADA Software
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 15 (February 19 & 20, 2009) Targeted Attacks Exploit Unpatched Adobe Flaw
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 22 (March 18, 2009) Critical Buffer Overflow Flaw in WordPerfect Library
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 24 (March 26, 2009) Overflow Flaws in Sun Java Runtime Environment Unpacking Utility
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 38 (May 12 & 13, 2009) Apple Issues Security, OS X Update
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 50 (June 25, 2009) Green Dam Exploit Posted to Internet
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 57 (July 16 & 17, 2009) Google Chrome 2 Update Addresses Two Flaws
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 76 (September 23 & 24, 2009) Apple Releases iTunes Update
SANS NewsBites Vol. 11 Num. 93 (November 23, 2009) New Version of Opera Browser Addresses Serious Security Issue (November 23, 2009)
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 3 (January 10, 2008) Proof-of-Concept Code for Zero Day QuickTime Flaw
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 6 (January 15 & 18, 2008) Citrix Issues Fixes for Code Execution Flaw in Several Products
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 12 (February 11, 2008) Apple Issues Mac OS X Update
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 17 (February 27, 2008) Mozilla Releases Thunderbird Update
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 21 (March 11 & 12, 2008) US-CERT Warns of Critical Flaws in Adobe Form Designer and Form Client
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 59 (July 25, 2008) RealPlayer Update Fixes Four Flaws
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 60 (July 29 & 30, 2008) Oracle Issues Out-of-Cycle Alert, Says it Will Issue Patch
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 71 (September 8, 2008) Google Releases Chrome Update
SANS NewsBites Vol. 10 Num. 75 (September 19 & 22, 2008) VMware Issues Fixes for Critical Buffer Overflow Flaws
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 3 (5 & 4 January 2007) Fix Available for OpenOffice Flaw
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 8 (24 January 2007) Apple Fixes QuickTime Flaw
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 12 (8 February 2007) Trend Micro Patches Flaw in Anti-Virus Scanning Engine
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 15 (16 February 2007) Apple Releases Second Security Update of 2007
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 16 (22 & 19 February 2007) Buffer Overflow Flaw in Snort
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 22 (March 15, 2007) Patches Available for Critical Flaw in OpenBSD Kernel
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 49 (June 21, 2007) Apple Patches IPv6, Apple TV Flaws
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 51 (June 27 & 28, 2007) RealPlayer Flaw Fixed
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 54 (July 9, 2007) Buffer Overflow Flaws in SAP Products
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 55 (July 10 & 11, 2007) Lack of Update Coordination at Sun Poses Security Concerns
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 57 (July 17, 2007) Vulnerabilities in Trillian And Yahoo! Messenger
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 76 (September 18, 2007) Overflow Flaw in OpenOffice Could Allow Remote Code Execution
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 97 (December 6 & 10, 2007) November Skype Update Fixes Remote Code Execution Flaw
SANS NewsBites Vol. 9 Num. 99 (December 18, 2007) Apple Releases QuickTime and Java Fixes
The top 25 programming errors provide some light on the subject: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/17/top_25_programming_errors/
And, the reason ?buffer overflow? is so prevalent is that it is the low-hanging fruit. As code gets corrected, and programmers become more aware, and because of better tools, the number of buffer overflow problems should be going down [as they appear to be doing so].
There is also the issue of manufacturers reporting the problems. This was the case with Apple and Unix/Linux, especially Apple, for a very long time ? that their product(s) was invulnerable to such problems. Well, surprise, surprise. They have as many, if not more problems with their code, as anyone else.
Windows, OS X, Linux/Unix, and the browsers that run on these platforms are (hopefully) becoming more secure. A result of that is that more hackers and malware writers will move to other low-hanging fruit. This means PDAs, smart phones, and the like. These are the targets today. And, with the ?social? environment, many users will fall well short of securing their devices. All that remains is the integrity of the manufacturer to report the problem(s).
Geoff
-
Now, before the moderators get their knickers in a twist, I am not asking ?where is the slim build??, I am asking ?when is the slim build??.
It has been ten days now, since the latest release. We are not talking a few days here, but ten days. That is 1/3rd of a month.
Were the moderators successful at killing the slim build?
Is there some delay in creating the slim build?
Has Google exerted their heavy hand on the Piriform management regarding the slim build and its, heaven forbid, absence of their precious adware/spyware/virus option?
Remember, Piriform says:
100% Spyware FREE
This software does NOT contain any Spyware, Adware or Viruses.
One could argue, since the majority of users simply skip the check box for the Google option, that CCleaner is, in fact, a Trojan to get Google on your PC. Once that happens, a host of other things can happen. The biggest, of course, is Google counting on monitoring your web habits. Perhaps Piriform should rethink their claim about ?100% Spyware Free?.
Also, to all those who will jump on this thread and say that the slim build is not needed, that is not the question I asked. If you do not know WHEN the slim build will be available, or the answer to any of my other questions, then you really need not respond.
Geoff
-
And this is relevant how ?
You imply that RPCSS would strengthen MSE against attack.
Presumably RPCSS would also strengthen any alternative third party protection against attack.
I do not see how the non-availablity of RPCSS can be a valid excuse for MSE to collapse like a house of cards when other third parties can withstand all that is thrown at them.
I am sure that MSE users that have suffered from malware would prefer that it should focus on more than a selfish interest in protecting itself ! !
Probably true.
I do not see the relevance.
Again, no excuse for MSE to collapse where third parties stand firm and secure.
It seems that OCHealthMon is part of 'Windows Live OneCare'
Any "Windows Live ....." is unacceptable bloat so far as I am concerned,
every time one of those brutes was disabled by M.S. a new *.MSI was installed and the previous obscenely large *.MSI was locked in solid.
I could only remove the old obsolete redundant installers if I was prepared to risk the integrity (such as it had) of my registry.
Alan, decaf is available in most countries around the world. Have a cup, sit back, and relax.
As I said, once a process is running with elevated privileges, all bets are off as to what the process can do, no matter what anti-malware product is being used. All anti-malware products have their features, and their shortcomings. There is no anti-malware product that will satisfy every need/concern that arises. Find one you like, and be happy.
My comment was just that. If you feel the need the argue, which seems to be the case most of the time, you will not do it with me. You are simply not worth the time.
Geoff
-
@ Super Fast
What Alan_B wrote sums it up in a nutshell, and no I'm not going to get into a long winded will go absolutely nowhere discussion about it as it has nothing to do with just unticking the "MS AntiMalware" box in CCleaner and is more of a suggestion to Microsoft to make Security Essentials more hard to eff around with by either disk cleaning tools or malware:
MSE does protect itself. For some application/malware to be able to turn off MSE, it needs to be running elevated. Once a process is running elevated (with such high security privileges), turning off MSE is only one of many things that can be done.
RPCSS service is a part of Windows and has special protection mechanisms, only available to Windows and processes that ship with Windows. MSE is not part of Windows, and does not have special security privileges. If it did, it would have an advantage over other AV vendors. And, if so, all the other AV vendors would cry foul.
MSE has a number of security safeguards and controls in place to prevent malware from infecting/affecting MSE. Having a ?watcher? service, like OCHealthMon, would serve little purpose. This also begs the question: Who watches the watcher?
However, to the point, the issue of the MSE logs, while a nuisance, does not affect MSE?s real-time protection, which is where the benefit of MSE is to be found. Prevention first, detection (scanning) second, removal/repair third.
Geoff
-
So you want CCleaner to be an "me too" following in the lines of a bloat ridden Office 2010 ! ! !
You resort to mocking me, my views, and my needs which are shared by many,
and you have read "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
Did that book do you any good ! ! !
I will GRACEFULLY allow you the last word in this discussion as you finally give me the often repeated request for just one benefit to be obtained from logging the use of CCleaner.
I can respect a reason for adding information to the event log if that information is more useful than the oldest information that gets displaced from the event log.
Will you please give a reason why you think anyone would think a CCleaner RUN event ought to displace this type of "soon to be displaced" Application Error
or this type of "soon to be displaced" Application Warning
Please give me a reason why anyone would choose to study event logs for when CCleaner was run,
would they not be better off getting a life,
or at least studying "How to Win Friends and Influence People" ! ! !
Just identify one benefit from such data
Please, I am begging you, give me a reason.
Alan, I need not do any of the things you are requesting. It is you who immediately attacked my opinion on the event log issue, which shows how little respect you have for others and their ideas. My position and opinion is that CCleaner should provide an event log feature, whether or not you see the value. Thankfully, the feature set of CCleaner is not for you to decide. If it were, it would not be the product that it is today.
And, throwing a tantrum and holding your breath until you turn blue is rather immature.
I will leave the last word to you.
GeoffreyB
-
Compromise: Make an option within CCleaner's advanced section to toggle Event Logger entries on/off.
Yes, it should be a toggle, and thanks for understanding.
GeoffreyB
-
You have totally disregarded my question
What use can you see for these statistics.
Please note that I never spoke of bloat in the product.
I am referring to the needless generation of statistics for which no benefit has been suggested.
There have been previous suggestions that CCleaner should add to the proliferation of junk files by creating a dedicated file to record what it has done.
All you have done is add a subtle twist by suggesting that this junk be added to a system event log.
This will use disc space, even if it is not in a dedicated log file,
and is likely to IMPEDE the user when looking in the event log to see what led up to and possibly contributed to a BSOD or other disaster.
In no way am I a bit "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous;"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuous
I CONSIDER IT FAR MORE IMPORTANT WHAT IS DONE BY REGISTRY CLEANING THAN BY THE USE OF CCLEANER FOR ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE.
This causes more disasters as it reduces the registry contents by a few kilobytes than the deleting of Megabytes of browser caches,
and this is, in my view, the only information that might be relevant when some one is looking at when a problem developed and what caused it.
Would you be arguing that a simple bare non-informative "Piriform Product launched" should be logged regardless of whether it was Defraggler or CCleaner ?
I am NOT arguing for the sake of arguing.
You however seem to want logging for the sake of logging without any apparent use for that data ! !
My, my... I seem to have touched a nerve and caused you to raise your voice.
Alan, using the event log for such purposes is actually what the event log is there for. Perhaps you should take some time to calm down, and review the entries in the event log. For example, look at the logging that Office 2010 does. And, the event log does have control over the size to which it can grow.
And, yes, defraggler should make such entries as well, if they do not already. I do not know if this is the case since I do not use defraggler.
However, let us all kowtow to your absolute (and narrow) view of the situation, since you must have the last word in any discussion, and that your point of view is, of course, the only valid point of view. Actually, it would be better for Piriform to abandon the entire GUI interface and go to a DOS command-line product, which seems best suited for your [limited] needs.
And, since we are throwing around links, here is some suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/067141299X/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
GeoffreyB
-
O.K.
Data is NOT Information.
I consider the time when CCleaner was run to be useless data that is only of interest for statistical purposes.
I would be interested in how you could make use of this as information,
and would you want to include which options were active,
and which files and registry keys were deleted ?
Alan, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Expand your argument as much as you want. However, the simple fact is that the statistics (not the entire listing of files) from the CLEANER run have already been generated at the completion of the run.
It is a simple, non-bloat step to write them (the cleaner statistics) to the event log. Let's stay focused - the cleaner statistics are what we are discussing. Expanding the argument to include the registry is a bit disingenuous with regard to the discussion, unless your original argument/opinion cannot stand on its own.
GeoffreyB
-
This would make it a WORSE product. Its mission in life is to reduce junk, not add to it.
Alan, that is the beauty of opinions. You believe it makes a WORSE product, I believe it makes a BETTER product.
We are not talking about bloat here, although bloat is a great fallback argument for those who cannot see the obvious benefits.
GeoffreyB
-
Let me restate: There is a wonderful feature in Windows known as the "EVENT LOG". In the EVENT LOG there is a section for APPLICATIONS. CCleaner (an APPLICATION), in its process of evolving into an ever better product, could easily make an entry in the APPLICATION EVENT LOG which would include run date and time, and OTHER statistical information.
Such information could be of use to the individual, and would seem to be an excellent addition to the CCleaner Network Edition.
For the OP - there is no easy, straight forward way of getting the information you want. For the forum moderators and members, and the CCleaner developers, questions such as the OP posted, while not having an answer, can sometimes be considered to be excellent suggestions. This is one of those times.
Many other products make such use of the EVENT LOG for recording such information, with good reason. Perhaps CCleaner could join the ranks.
GeoffreyB
-
There is no way, CCleaner doesn't keep a log. Your best bet would be to find a file you know would be deleted and check its creation date, but that may or may not be exact.
Would seem to be a reasonable request to make such an entry in the application event log.
GeoffreyB
-
On his first point, redhawk is partially correct ? cookies do not ?store? the creation date. However, a cookie is a file and, as such, it does have a creation date. While not visible or displayed in CCleaner, you can easily do what you want. I will use Windows 7 as an example, and I will leave it to you to tailor this procedure for Windows XP:
Go to START, RUN, and enter ?C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies\Low? in the RUN box (without the quotes), and ENTER.
When the window opens, RIGHT CLICK on the column header bar, and add the ?DATE CREATED? column.
Then, SORT by DATE CREATED.
On his second point, redhawk may not see any value in sorting by DATE CREATED. You, and others, may see beyond this and use this information for some purpose that redhawk has not yet realized.
Bill, suggestions are what they are. That other users may not see the value should not be an obstacle. Ultimately, the implementation is considered by the developers. There is always a balance between the feature requested (value), the resources (people and cost) required, and the schedule. Only the Piriform management can decide this, and not other users and moderators, although their feedback and comments are equally considered, as are all users feedback and comments.
Geoffrey
-
Not trying to start a debate, or argument.
However, with regard to the recent (and past) discussions regarding CCleaner ?slim? version, I have these comments:
1) The moderators will have to accept that there are those who will ask, time and time again, about the availability of the slim version.
2) Whether the moderators believe it is time to put an end to the slim version is not for them to decide. The moderators do not have that power. The user?s reason(s) for wanting the slim version are as valid as the moderator?s reasons for ending it.
3) The moderators seem to have been a bit ?thin-skinned? in the recent discussion regarding the slim version, which is where they were incorrect. This typically happens to moderators after too long a period of moderating ? that their point, position, and answer is the only valid response. Their opinion is just that ? another opinion.
4) The moderators do not need to respond to the user(s) who continue to ask ?where is the slim version?. Just ignore the user, or let someone else (a non-moderator) answer the user. If the discussion gets out of bounds, then the moderator should do what they volunteer to do ? moderate.
5) Piriform could help with this problem, by simply adding a MESSAGE to the ?builds page? for CCleaner: ?slim and portableU3 coming soon ? check back in a couple of days?. Since the user would have visited the ?builds page? to get the slim version, they SHOULD see the message. If they still ask the question ?Where?s the slim version??, ignore them.
So, as you can see, my points are directed at the moderators, and the users (who continue to ask for the slim version immediately after the new release of CCleaner). Yes, I understand how it can be irritating to have to answer the same question over and over, for something as seemingly insignificant as a slim version. But, moderators are there to moderate. If they find themselves becoming irritated and frustrated, it is time for them to take a break from the forum. It also begs the question ? who moderates the moderators? Yes, they do a fine job, and are volunteers. But, they also need to take a step back on this issue. To have four moderators pile on the recent discussion was a bit much. However, I also know that having a user who wants to argue and become disruptive needs attention. Let the first moderator to respond handle the user. Four was a bit much.
And, for the record, I read the forum, and know when to wait for the slim version, which I sometimes use and sometimes not. I am thankful that there is a choice, and that Piriform management/development provides such a choice of versions. For me, I can handle ?un-checking? whatever is offered. For friends to whom I recommend CCleaner, I sometimes direct them to the slim version, as I know they will not pay attention to the check box.
And, for the record, I have been a moderator on two different forums, and have answered thousands of questions, as well as moderating those discussions that deviate from the rules.
This post is not meant to create an argument. And, I will not be responding to any posts. My post is merely an opinion, except for my point #5, which I really suggest the management implement.
Respectfully,
Geoff
Ccleaner does not securely wipe recycle bin
in CCleaner Bug Reporting
Posted
If you want professional grade, and guarantees, you need to purchase a product that offers such. You won't get what you are looking for with free software (most likely).
Geoff