We digress, but I realize it as a date format, not a ccleaner version - especially because it's today's date and no version of ccleaner was released today - which was how I read the report doh18.10.17 is the date.
dd.mm.yy (I use the same format here)
Latest version of CCleaner v5.36 6278 includes this in the changelog:-
Emergency Updater
-Added new executable: "CCUpdate.exe"
-Added new Windows Scheduled Task: "CCleaner Update"
Does this mean it is now going to update automatically regardless of our option settings?
If I remove the CCleaner.exe can I avoid this or will I just get more nags because I haven't updated?
Latest version of CCleaner v5.36 6278 includes this in the changelog:-
Does this mean it is now going to update automatically regardless of our option settings?
If I remove the CCleaner.exe can I avoid this or will I just get more nags because I haven't updated?
Only in an absolute emergency. This is controlled via a Scheduled Task in Windows. The scheduled task can be disabled if you so wish, but this feature is there for your security. It's entirely up to you.
Latest version of CCleaner v5.36 6278 includes this in the changelog:-
Does this mean it is now going to update automatically regardless of our option settings?
If I remove the CCleaner.exe can I avoid this or will I just get more nags because I haven't updated?
Have a read here
https://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=49069&do=findComment&comment=287836
Thanks for the info.
Since when did updating CCleaner become an "emergency" security matter? I've been using it, safely, for over 7 years without it requiring such a feature.
An emergency fix is probably only ever going to be used if a previous update has been found vulnerable or faulty in some way. That does not improve security for the user does it? It is a tool to fix a problem after the event or the danger has been discovered with all that implies.
If an automatic/emergency update for some other reason had been in place during the earlier previously undetected hack it could have spread the problem not curtailed it. That is one of the types of reasons I don't like auto-updates.
TBH I wait and check online before any install if there is a reported problem with all program updates from those unlucky saps who use auto-updates before I go ahead and do it myself. That has saved me from problems with Windows, AVs, browsers and a handful of other programs over the years too.
my personal opinion on the Emergency Update feature - it's a knee-jerk reaction to the v5.33 security breach, and there's nothing wrong with that.
in that example, those with v5.33 would have received the patch a lot sooner than if they waited for the normal auto-update schedule.
to stop using a malware infected program within hours instead of weeks has to be a good thing.
the new feature's main purpose is to win back public trust, it ticks the boxes that they are listening and have a process in place to minimise a repeat.
So I get why the emergency updater has been introduced, but have a couple of questions.
Why is it not shown as a scheduled task by CCleaner itself? (Even in Advanced Mode its not shown).
Oh, and when naming the ‘CCUpdate.exe’ were Piriform/Avast not aware that there are exsiting programmes/processes that use the same name (albeit with a different mix of upper/lower case), at least one of which is associated with a ‘worm’? (Just give it a quick Google).
Heres an example: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/startups/ccUpdate-758.html
Oh, and when naming the 'CCUpdate.exe' were Piriform/Avast not aware that there are exsiting programmes/processes that use the same name (albeit with a different mix of upper/lower case), at least one of which is associated with a 'worm'? (Just give it a quick Google).
Heres an example: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/startups/ccUpdate-758.html
I'll link an admin to your post because anti-malware will also detect things based upon their name possibly causing a false positive.
I'll link an admin to your post because anti-malware will also detect things based upon their name possibly causing a false positive.
Cheers, that's why I mentioned it.
They haven't responded. So we'll see what happens.