![]() Please note: There are some apps on the iOS App Store which claim to be CCleaner Free and CCleaner Professional. The latest version is available for download here. Affected versions: CCleaner version and CCleaner Cloud version. We can confirm that these are NOT our products, and we are working with Apple to have them removed. If you or someone you know has purchased this app, you are eligible for a refund from the app store and you can find out how to do this here.The Redmond company later revised the CCleaner listing from PUA:Win32/CCleaner to PUA:Win32/PiriformBundler. Perhaps coincidentally, the bundled software all appear to be rival alternatives of Microsoft's own offerings. Sandboxing requires that an app can only have access to its own files and some user files. Going even further back to 2015, Microsoft's Gov Maharaj, Principal Software Development Engineer, had seemingly completely ignored the application during a web show called The Defrag Show that was published on Microsoft's Channel 9 website (link appears not to be available anymore). Piriform says it believes the 32-bit Windows version of CCleaner and version of CCleaner Cloud were modified illicitly before their release to users. As CCleaner needs to clean data from the system and other applications, it cannot work on iOS and iPadOS because of this requirement. Compare CCleaner Cloud VS System Ninja and find out whats different, what people are saying, and what are their alternatives. ![]() Find out more about Apple's sandboxing requirements. Please note: There are some apps on the iOS App Store which claim to. ![]() About CCleaner Maharaj had said:ĬCleaner is … how do I put it mildly … Don’t… let’s just move on! Maharaj was apparently trying to advise a user upgrading their PC from Windows 7 to Windows 10 about unwanted and unnecessary apps. The expression and words showed that Microsoft at least to some degree wasn't really a fan of the software back then. While we are on the topic of CCleaner on Microsoft Store, there appears to be an impostor app posing as CCleaner called " PCCleaner" and uses the real CCleaner's logo. Even if you were monitoring all outbound communication, you most likely would have allowed it since the process was running from the CCleaner directory.Update: It appears that an announcement regarding CCleaner coming to Windows 11's Microsoft Store was officially made by CCleaner last year. This is also "iffy" since the CCleaner updater most likely created a new process most like likely in its own directory and used that process to perform the remote communication. By "aggressive" I mean that CCleaner would be only allowed to connect its known update servers and nothing else. One way this could have been user detected was through aggressive outbound network monitoring. This is "point proof" that the Next Gen/AI algorithms are also totally ineffective against this. No one detected the malware prior to its discovery in mid-Aug and subsequent public disclosure earlier this week. The backdoor was a validity signed executable in a trusted software update download. I could understand that zero day did not recognize the threat, but please, was active almost a month and no one else noticed, or who knows how many months they would have taken to do so. The reality of the situation is no one knows for sure what system modification occurred through use of the backdoor in the month or more it was resident on one's device. There are currently a lot of users, based on posted comments in the security forums, who believe they are now safe since security solutions are detecting and removing the original backdoor. Case in point was the EternalBlue set backdoor and later delivered malware that used that backdoor and closed it so no one else could use it. Once activated not only can the original hacker use it but so can anyone else. ![]() My statement is a backdoor is a backdoor. ![]() Avast in my opinion is spreading FUD by their statement that the second stage of the backdoor never activated therefore no actual malware payload was downloaded. Would be helpful if Eset published an article on recommended mitigation to anyone affected this.Ĭisco already publically stated restore prior to Aug. As only two smaller distribution products (the 32 bit and cloud versions, Windows only) were compromised, the actual number of users affected by this incident was 2.27M. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |