Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About pearshaped

  • Rank
  1. Comodo Browser Protection warns me that CCleaner is trying to change the current Firefox settings. Is that normal? It's CCleaner v.5.35.6210 (64-bit) on Windows 10, at the end of Analysis (which included Firefox Cookies, FF Internet Cache, FF Session and FF Saved Form Information) but before Run Cleaner.
  2. You can click "Restore default settings" in order to be sure what the default values are in CCleaner (unless Piriform changed them in the latest version). On an unrelated note, why does CCleaner 5.35 try to connect to when I run it? Is it a Piriform/Avast server?
  3. @Nergal I watched the video but I have the same question as Patrykr: if you close CCleaner before the 10 minutes elapsed, would it still "call home" or not? @Andavari Thanks for sharing. Yet ars technica writes: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/ccleaner-malware-outbreak-is-much-worse-than-it-first-appeared/
  4. Hi all, I think I have been lucky because there are no signs that my PCs were affected, but yet I am still a bit concerned because of the uncertainties in this story. For starters, it took a full month to find out about the malware distributed with CCleaner 5.33. In a month, the hackers could have covered some of their traces on PCs and on the servers they used, so I wonder: is it possible we don't know everything about the malware effects? Also, it's not clear to me what the new CCleaner "clean" installer does in order to remove the malware. Does it delete registry keys and files left by the trojan thus removing its traces too? That has been asked many times. Please Piriform explain. If you want us users to still trust you in the future, we need a thorough official FAQ about the incident. Besides, the announcements from Piriform and Avast turned out to be optimistic to say the least. They stated they believed that #1) only 64-bit versions were affected and #2) 2nd stage payload was never activated. Both statements have been put in doubt. Statement #2 was refused by later findings by Talos Intelligence: there's evidence that 2nd stage was activated at least in a limited number of instances. They may be a small number of cases, but the point is Avast's assumption was found to be mistaken. As to statement #1, it doesn't match what users wrote on this forum about their 64-bit Windows 7 being affected too, if I understand correctly. Even though the new developments don't seem to affect my own Windows 10 64-bit, all the "surprises" in this story still leave me in doubt. Call me paranoid, but I would like to be *positive* that my system has not been compromised. I also feel that the silence from Piriform and Avast on the official forums, after their first announcements and posts, is a sign that even they are not 100 percent sure that the incident caused no real harm at all, how could they be? Thanks in advance for any *real* clarifications.
  • Create New...