LabVIEW707 13 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Lol.........So Google Chrome (shown in your screen shot) which is actually the most popular browser on the market is classified as "unwanted content" by Eset. Does Eset have a court case going on against Google we don;t know about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugk 397 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Yes in this case Google Chrome is the (attention:) potentially unwanted content. But I think you're not really reading what we write here. @SweX already explained this very good, so read it again. BTW there is nothing LOL about it. Edited April 2, 2015 by rugk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yongsua 16 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Lol.........So Google Chrome (shown in your screen shot) which is actually the most popular browser on the market is classified as "unwanted content" by Eset. Does Eset have a court case going on against Google we don;t know about? It is not unwanted content, it is potentially unwanted content. Why? Because nowadays most of the users don't really read the installation agreement carefully, they just blindly click Next, Next, Next.... But lately they will then only realize that they have installed some bundled applications which they never really intended to install but carelessly provided the full consent to the installation process. This is why we need PUP detection and this is the main purpose of PUP detection. Edited April 2, 2015 by yongsua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomFace 539 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Yes in this case Google Chrome is the (attention:) potentially unwanted content. But I think you're not really reading what we write here. @SweX already explained this very good, so read it again. BTW there is nothing LOL about it. Well said rugk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugk 397 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 You're welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweX 871 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Especially since CCleaner was never detected before. Before when ? Do you talk about ESET or other vendors ? Lol..................Try reading the first post made by Handries. Stop defending Eset like it's your first born. Clearly it's a problem and I have submitted it. FYI....................Yes I fully understand how and why Eset is detecting this as a PUP. Again the fact that ONLY Eset gives people this warning means it's a false positive. Heck even Virustotal shows in green that its harmless. Now if you upload something with OpenCandy such as ImgBurn or uTorrent you will see more antiviruses detecting it. Again there is NOTHING malicious with Google Chrome or Google Toolbar. Now if CCleaner came pre packed with OpenCandy that's a different ball game. I defend that they are detecting bundled stuff, even if they are the only one doing it in this case. Period. Anyone can go to Virustotal and vote "green" if they like, people vote green because it is a safe legitimate official installer from Piriform. And it's perfectly fine to vote "green" because there is nothing (to use your words) "malicious" about it. You could actually say that the people voting "red" are the ones doing wrong in this particular case since there is nothing (to use your words again) "malicious" about it. It doesn't matter if it is OpenCandy or a fancy looking browser from Google, both can be detected if they are bundled with another software. @rugk, Great post mate! Edited April 5, 2015 by SweX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweX 871 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Lol.........So Google Chrome (shown in your screen shot) which is actually the most popular browser on the market is classified as "unwanted content" by Eset. In the cases it comes bundled with another software (unwanted) like in the standard CCleaner installer, Yep. Edited April 2, 2015 by SweX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugk 397 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) BTW where is the TS gone? I hope(d) he can mark this as solved now... And BTW: He already got the answer to this thread months ago, because he asked nearly exactly the same at this time. www.piriform.com And a note about piriform: This statement on their builts site includes the slim installer: Builds below are for advanced home users.They are not for distribution, mirroring or commercial use. So yes, (of course) they disallow other sites to use their non-PUA built for downloading. They want users to download the one with PUA... And the advanced user-statement is of course also funny... Edited April 2, 2015 by rugk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweX 871 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) BTW where is the TS gone? I hope(d) he can mark this as solved now... And BTW: He already got the answer to this thread months ago, because he asked nearly exactly the same at this time. www.piriform.com And a not about piriform: This statement includes the slim installer: Builds below are for advanced home users. They are not for distribution, mirroring or commercial use. So yes, (of course) they disallow other sites to use their non-PUA built for downloading. They want users to download the one with PUA... And the advanced user-statement is of course also funny... Yeah he showed little interest with his previous thread, and same level of interest in this one. So I guess he got his answer, even if the discussion have continued. Yes of course that's why. But I don't agree with Piriform, I would say that the slim build is more for non-advanced users than for advanced users (for obvious reasons) Edited April 5, 2015 by SweX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Valued Members SCR 195 Posted April 2, 2015 Most Valued Members Share Posted April 2, 2015 I did not have Potentially Unsafe Application checked, and after enabling that I did receive the warning on the download attempt. Nice job with the quick assessment SCR. Glad it worked out. I think it's a good idea to have it turned on, obviously. The user can make a choice based on the information offered by Eset. Choose to not download/Install it. The user can choose to have Eset take no action and still have it detected in the future. Finally the user can choose to have Eset ignore that specific product in the future, not a choice I would make, and still have the detection on for other possible issues. Then again the user can choose to turn the protection off, or never turn it on, and complain about the additional software installed because they couldn't be bothered to read what they are clicking... Yeah, I'm one of those people who actually reads the TOS when installing software.. Choice..The best of all worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destarah 6 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 At the risk of offending LabVIEW707 (snicker) I would actually like ESET to include the option to enable detection of Potentially Unsafe Applications during installation (the same way it asks about enabling detection of Potentialy Unwanted Applications). I had no idea the option was not enabled given that I had enabled Unwated during install. Keep scrubbing furiously ESET, someone has to try to save people from themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomFace 539 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 At the risk of offending LabVIEW707 (snicker) I would actually like ESET to include the option to enable detection of Potentially Unsafe Applications during installation (the same way it asks about enabling detection of Potentialy Unwanted Applications). I had no idea the option was not enabled given that I had enabled Unwated during install. Keep scrubbing furiously ESET, someone has to try to save people from themselves! Destarah, you may want to put your suggestion here: https://forum.eset.com/topic/51-future-changes-to-eset-smart-security/page-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morisato 8 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Not sure why you're all using the Standard or Slim versions when Pro version has nothing in it and is offered as a download. hxxp://download.piriform.com/ccsetup504pro.exe Never had any issues with that one but then again I don't use web scanning as that slightly slows my fast browsing experience. I just know ESET doesn't complain about me installing Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweX 871 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Not sure why you're all using the Standard or Slim versions when Pro version has nothing in it and is offered as a download. Well, slim is very slim and has nothing in it either, and is offered as a download too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morisato 8 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Not sure why you're all using the Standard or Slim versions when Pro version has nothing in it and is offered as a download. Well, slim is very slim and has nothing in it either, and is offered as a download too. True that but I was getting mixed reports of it may be having it or not from the posts before for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESET Moderators foneil 342 Posted April 9, 2015 ESET Moderators Share Posted April 9, 2015 At the risk of offending LabVIEW707 (snicker) I would actually like ESET to include the option to enable detection of Potentially Unsafe Applications during installation (the same way it asks about enabling detection of Potentialy Unwanted Applications). I had no idea the option was not enabled given that I had enabled Unwated during install. Keep scrubbing furiously ESET, someone has to try to save people from themselves! Destarah, you may want to put your suggestion here: https://forum.eset.com/topic/51-future-changes-to-eset-smart-security/page-23 Yes, that's a good suggestion--at this time, by default disabling "unsafe" applications is on purpose, but user feedback regarding an installer option could alter that I'm sure. For reference: hxxp://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN3204 Your ESET product can detect potentially unwanted, unsafe and suspicious applications before they are installed on your computer. When you install your ESET product, you are prompted to enable or disable detection of Potentially unwanted applications. Whereas the detection of Potentially unwanted applications is configured during installation, the detection of Potentially unsafe applications is disabled by default and the detection of suspicious applications is enabled by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Valued Members SCR 195 Posted April 10, 2015 Most Valued Members Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Not sure why you're all using the Standard or Slim versions when Pro version has nothing in it and is offered as a download. hxxp://download.piriform.com/ccsetup504pro.exe Never had any issues with that one but then again I don't use web scanning as that slightly slows my fast browsing experience. I just know ESET doesn't complain about me installing Pro. The link you provided triggers a warning in Eset just like all other download links of CCleaner from Piriform with the exception being the slim version. If you don't have the detection of PUA's and PUP's turned on then you won't get the warning. With regard to a fast browsing experience. I'm on a Verizon 3g connection with a not the fastest computer in the world. I can not tell the difference between having scanning off and on with regard to speed. At a mere 1 to 2 mbps down and .45 mbps up, on a good day, I would certainly notice. But that's my experience. Actually it's good I don't have a real fast connection as I would probably burn through my 5 GB cap in about three days. I can't be running out of bytes before I run out of month. Warning from Eset on your link: Edited April 10, 2015 by SCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morisato 8 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Strange... decided to turn on web access protection -> http check to test the download links on piriform. I finally do get it if a wait a couple seconds after pressing the download button. Strange how there is no warning given about it when installing said app though. No toolbar was ever installed when I installed my CCleaner (including the updates thereafter); maybe due to the fact that once you opt-out once it stays like that for all updates? Also, hxxp://forum.piriform.com/?showtopic=40552 should explain it in more detail and was supposedly addressed. Edited April 10, 2015 by Morisato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Valued Members SCR 195 Posted April 10, 2015 Most Valued Members Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) If you have the detection turned on you will still see the warning on download. I believe you are correct on the execution of the update. I haven't seen anything of worth while benefit for me in the recent updates to CCleaner so I have passed on them. I really don't like to update for the sake of updating, there needs to be a good reason to. Edited April 10, 2015 by SCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugk 397 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Also, hxxp://forum.piriform.com/?showtopic=40552 should explain it in more detail and was supposedly addressed. Well... you could post there a link to this topic. I think this topic explains it quite good and detailed. Edited April 10, 2015 by rugk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svlo531 0 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Turns out now we know why ESET blocked CCleaner in the first place after 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomFace 539 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 10 hours ago, svlo531 said: Turns out now we know why ESET blocked CCleaner in the first place after 3 years. Either you're a trifle bit confused (comparing a PUA to a trojan) or attempting a humorous interjection...but the conversation is at :https://forum.eset.com/topic/13175-ccleaner-v5336162-and-ccleaner-cloud-v1073191-had-been-compromised/?page=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts