Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

blog.talosintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 229 posts

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#191

Post by Skunkleton »

criddell wrote: post #136
happy-go-lucky wrote: post #23

As a kid, the only OS I was aware of was Windows. Once, my computer was infected to the point where it was almost unusable. A more experienced friend suggested a non-free antivirus and the CCleaner. After a lot of effort, I could get my machine back to working, but it became so slow that it led me to discover Linux. Now, on a Windows 10 machine, I’ve nothing but Defender, and since the aforementioned experience I’ve…

Definitely test drive a couple of Linux distributions. I do so periodically and love seeing the progress. There are really only two things keeping me on Windows. 1. I run some Windows-only applications that don't work with Wine. 2. A lot of Linux software often doesn't work well on a hi-dpi monitors. Aside from that, since Windows 7 (and later versions of Vista), Windows is fine. IMHO, operating systems aren't terrib…

hi-dpi is in a sad state right now. Fortunatly, there is good support for hidpi in wayland, and as things migrate that way it will get better.

As for running windows apps....how much time do you want to waste? The only windows stuff I really run is games, and the way I do that is by running windows in a VM with the graphics card direct assigned. It works really well, and is super neat, but it was a huge pain in the ass to set up on consumer grade hardware.

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#192

Post by zachruss92 »

Skunkleton wrote: post #191
criddell wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely test drive a couple of Linux distributions. I do so periodically and love seeing the progress. There are really only two things keeping me on Windows. 1. I run some Windows-only applications that don't work with Wine. 2. A lot of Linux software often doesn't work well on a hi-dpi monitors. Aside from that, since Windows 7 (and later versions of Vista), Windows is fine. IMHO, operating systems aren't terrib…

hi-dpi is in a sad state right now. Fortunatly, there is good support for hidpi in wayland, and as things migrate that way it will get better. As for running windows apps....how much time do you want to waste? The only windows stuff I really run is games, and the way I do that is by running windows in a VM with the graphics card direct assigned. It works really well, and is super neat, but it was a huge pain in the a…

Exciting to hear about HighDPI support in Wayland. I had to switch back to windows after getting a 4k display because it's basically unusable for a 3 monitor setup on Ubuntu (1 4k + 2 1080s). We'll see in a month :)

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#193

Post by takeda »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #184
happy-go-lucky wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the default installer for CCleaner automatically installs Chrome and sets it as the default browser Why is that is my question.

Google pays companies to do new installs of Chrome. They're supposed to make it explicit, but Google doesn't really police it. It's usually via 'dark patterns' as it is with most free Windows antivirus apps where it shows a small indication at the bottom of the screen on a window that's about something else. For example, Avast sneaks it in as part of an automatic update on the Continue window: https://i.imgur.com/NIZ…

"Don't be evil"

Even if it is explicit the idea is to have it enabled by default so people accidentally install it and then hopefully start using it.

Which browser dominates should be based on its quality not how much money you spend on it :/

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#194

Post by xorcist »

superasn wrote: post #35
happy-go-lucky wrote: post #23

As a kid, the only OS I was aware of was Windows. Once, my computer was infected to the point where it was almost unusable. A more experienced friend suggested a non-free antivirus and the CCleaner. After a lot of effort, I could get my machine back to working, but it became so slow that it led me to discover Linux. Now, on a Windows 10 machine, I’ve nothing but Defender, and since the aforementioned experience I’ve…

> it led me to discover Linux As someone who is the same boat but hasn't discovered Linux yet, how hard would you say it would be to install a version of Linux that support 3 monitors (using an onboard ATI card and a PCIe card)? Last time I tried installing it this is the part I gave up at. Also as a person always been aware of Window I find the graphics in Ubuntu lacking some finesse, i.e. the scrollbars, window pan…

The boring answer is that if you have a graphics card with good Linux support, you're going to have a good experience. Otherwise probably less good. So without knowing the specifics of your graphics hardware it's impossible to give a clear answer.

People generally don't fault MacOS for not supporting whatever hardware they bodged together, yet they expect Linux to work with anything because hackers and magic. I guess that's a good reputation to have but it's not very useful if you want something that just works.

In the case of Linux, what just works is generally the drivers that are built in to the system, with vendors that take an active part in Linux development. And since Intel started to make both network and graphics cards, that's usually your best bet. ATI is generally usable too, but performance and power consumption generally lag their Windows equivalent drivers.

With that said, it's quite easy to test. Download the latest Fedora (or Ubuntu) live DVD and boot it. If that works with your display, a native install is going to work too.

Just don't install Linux as an almost-Windows or cheap-MacOS. If you want Windows software then that's what you should run it on. Run Linux because you want a UNIX desktop and the kind of software that goes with it (gcc, bash, rsync, native TCP/IP utilities and those things).

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#195

Post by copperx »

eco wrote: post #185
Can_Not wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Categorically disregarding the use of automated maintainence tools under the guise of "lazy vs real techies" seems short sited, arrogant, and regressive.

It may be more expensive but hand-crafted, artisanal system administration is well worth it. The difference between it and cheap, factory produced system administration is night and day. Also, it's Local and Made In The USA so you are helping people around you in the greatest nation on earth rather than poor people in another country.

Whats wrong with helping poor people?

Also, quick question: are Puppet and Ansible "factory produced" sysadmin?

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#196

Post by user5994461 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #129
lightedman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ccleaner+broke+my+computer&i... Two seconds to type four words into the search bar.

That doesn't prove the parents contention which was "they do more harm than good". They presumably have something they've based that opinion on other than the existence of problems with a particular app - if you don't have anything substantive to add then please keep your "lm[f]gtfy, lolz" type comments to yourself, thanks.

The opinion is based on the broken computers and applications that happen after running CCleaner.

That software basically go through your computer and delete a ton of things that it considers useless. Have you ever seen the defaults settings? For instance, it used to delete the history, cache and settings from all major browsers.

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#197

Post by NiveaGeForce »

NiveaGeForce wrote: post #175
princekolt wrote: post #10

There has been a number of cases of installers from trusted developers being infected lately. (For example Transmission being infected twice...) On our side (developers) we need to be careful with this idea that "we will know" when something is wrong and be more careful when deploying software. It would also be nice if some form of tool could be used to test a binary to make sure it only contains what it should conta…

> There has been a number of cases of installers from trusted developers being infected lately. Here a few other cases * https://www.pcworld.com/article/3104180/software/pc-nuking-m... * https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/6hvzzt/psa_my_ch... * https://lifehacker.com/many-browser-extensions-have-become-a... * http://www.zdnet.com/article/android-malware-in-google-play-... * https://arstechnica.com/security/20…

Here another high profile case

* https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/22/worlds-biggest-l...

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#198

Post by jlgaddis »

tekni5 wrote: post #22

So it was only the 32-bit executable that was affected? By default CCleaner installs both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions, however on 64-bit systems it only runs the 64-bit executable and points every shortcut it makes to the 64-bit executable. On one of my affected systems that appears to have had 5.33 installed, I noticed no registry keys that appear to be created and that system never ran the 32-bit executable. Wou…

It might be "acceptable" or "reasonable" to assume it's not affected. It would be safe to assume that it is.

Re: Malware identified in CCleaner 5.33

#200

Post by isntthatsox »

contravariant wrote: post #20
princekolt wrote: post #10

There has been a number of cases of installers from trusted developers being infected lately. (For example Transmission being infected twice...) On our side (developers) we need to be careful with this idea that "we will know" when something is wrong and be more careful when deploying software. It would also be nice if some form of tool could be used to test a binary to make sure it only contains what it should conta…

I'm not sure how exactly these infections work, but one method would be to infect the developers' PCs. In which case you essentially can't trust anything. You'd need some kind of byzantine fault tolerance (mandatory multi-person code review?) to be sure nothing like this ever happens What makes this scary is that, as far as I know, pretty much no software has that kind of security, and there are several pieces of wid…

> mandatory multi-person code review?

Isn't this pretty much mandatory with SOX compliance anyway?

Post reply on HN