New Antiexecutable: NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by sg09, Jun 3, 2011.

  1. Mr.X

    Mr.X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Posts:
    3,442
    Location:
    Mexico
    @novirusthanks

    Just fyi cause I know it's Chrome's stupidity with test31:

    chrome's_stupidity.png

    Also tried previous test30 and has no warning issues:

    nvt.png
     
  2. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    7,976
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    :D
     
  3. novirusthanks

    novirusthanks Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Posts:
    1,019
    Location:
    Italy
  4. Mr.X

    Mr.X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Posts:
    3,442
    Location:
    Mexico
    I don't understand what you mean but never happened before.
    Btw it happened again with the updated binary installer.
     
  5. novirusthanks

    novirusthanks Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Posts:
    1,019
    Location:
    Italy
    Using Firefox now and no alerts so far.

    Not know exactly why Chrome flags it, the executable is digitally signed with both SHA1+SHA256.

    Users reported that after some hours or days the red flag was gone with other builds.

    Does it happen if you copy and paste the link in the Chrome's address bar and then type ENTER manually?
     
  6. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    5,222
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Hello @novirusthanks,
    Thanks for the prompt and speedy fix! All is now working without issue...
     
  7. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    7,976
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    How does this look as far as establishing every rule in the book. Plus on "Allow Known Safe Process Behaviors", this gets ticked at a later date since even some known processes-I want to know what they are and where they travel from/to.

    f5.jpg
     
  8. SHvFl

    SHvFl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Posts:
    877
    @novirusthanks Have to ask the question again. Sigh...
    Can you please tell us what happened with 1809 and made ERP not work because it is kinda serious.
     
  9. Mr.X

    Mr.X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Posts:
    3,442
    Location:
    Mexico
    Today's gone, the warning. You were right, new build new warning. Stupid Chrome.
     
  10. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    11,145
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Just check it out yourself. If you block software_reporter_tool.exe, you will see another process with some random name running which tries to access Program Files in order to see what software you are running. This alone is a privacy violation, can't believe that people are falling for this Google Chrome crap. They even serve up ads based on your browsing history.
     
  11. __Nikopol

    __Nikopol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Germany
    You're right, what the hell? A chrome.exe spawns another process called: "055033cb-6a68-406b-89cd-7ed6b27ff73f.exe" from "C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Local\Temp\ChromeCleaner_0_7652_13244". At least if you click "Find and remove harmful software" to force it to start software_reporter_tool.exe. I couldn't wait for it to start automatically.

    I also find that if I uncheck the mark at "Report details to Google" it will be checked again the next time you start chrome. (Not sandboxed or anything)
     
  12. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    4,994
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Maybe related to the new feature detecting which sec softs you are using.

    Who cares, listing my apps will never hurt me or empty my bank account...security outweight privacy.

    I don't care Google collect some datas about me, I never had any negative effects from it, however Chrome made my browsing safer.

    Anyway, if you are a privacy-concerned person or paranoid that want to hide everything, don't use internet and go put your money under your mattress, banks are the ultimate spies, and they can hurt you by working hand in hands with the authorities/taxes administration ...not saying they make a very accurate profile of you. Google is a child compared to them.
     
  13. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    2,322
    Location:
    Canada
    If you scroll a bit further you will see how to: "Block the Software Reporter Tool"

    -https://www.ghacks.net/2018/01/20/how-to-block-the-chrome-software-reporter-tool-software_reporter_tool-exe/

    Maybe trying to block the reporting tool using an anti-executable is a bit like trying to play Dr. Frankenstein making genetic changes to his monster. Chrome's built-in defenses are probably fighting back, so to speak. ghack's method of blocking using only Windows permissions is probably the reliable method of blocking it. BTW, it doesn't seem to be that much of a privacy concern at all, based on what I've read about it.

    Well said :thumb: With so much focus and distraction on privacy concerns, it might be steering one's attention away on how secure and resistant to attacks Chrome's browser model is, especially if security-related flags are enabled.
     
  14. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    4,994
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Indeed, no one can deny that, even in blackhats conventions, they admit breaking chrome is feasible but would take too much time and resources to be worthy.
    I prefer sacrifice a little privacy/convenience to gain huge security.

    If someone breaks into your system, your privacy is gone...
     
  15. __Nikopol

    __Nikopol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Germany
    Safer, even in comparison to a heavily configured Firefox in a sandbox?
     
  16. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    4,994
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Don't compare barebone apps left at default with customized apps backup via a 3rd party tool...

    You won't compare the protection of a basic car with the one from a armored car made to protect the pope or a president...

    Barebone, Chrome is the safest browser.
    FF security was always a joke but since they followed Chrome by implementing built-in sandboxing, things may get better for FF.
     
  17. __Nikopol

    __Nikopol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Germany
    I never understood why people who are security-enthusiasts (or pros) are comparing programs in stock condition... It doesn't make sense to me to limit a configurable program to the compatibility with mainstream in comparisons made by-and-for enthusiasts/pros. But ok, you're right, I guess. :(
     
  18. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    4,994
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    You compare similar things, tweaked with tweaked and stock with stock. This is simple logic.

    You don't compare a bicycle with a formula 1 on a speed test...

    In our case, you can compare Chrome tweaked with FF tweaked. If you add a 3rd party tool into the mix, both must use the said tool for the comparison to be valid.
     
  19. Mr.X

    Mr.X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Posts:
    3,442
    Location:
    Mexico
    What does this mean? I don't understand this expression. Thanks.
     
  20. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    4,994
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Default settings
     
  21. __Nikopol

    __Nikopol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Posts:
    588
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, sorry Mr.X, sometimes I don't come up with the best description. Not my native language.
    I've never seen comparisons of the tweaked. :cautious:
    And I threw sandbox in there because I thought Firefox doesn't have a native one. Oops :D
     
  22. Mr.X

    Mr.X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Posts:
    3,442
    Location:
    Mexico
    No problem. Thank you both. English is not my native language either.
     
  23. K3yRoX

    K3yRoX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Posts:
    11
    Location:
    France
    @novirusthanks I'm still having a delay when I open portable apps. No problem for installed software.
     
  24. Floyd 57

    Floyd 57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Posts:
    299
    Location:
    Europe
    Can you elaborate further?
     
  25. K3yRoX

    K3yRoX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Posts:
    11
    Location:
    France
    I've a folder full of portable applications located under C:\Users\X\Software\Portable\

    I created a rule to exclude this folder, but every application launched from there has a delay. (ex: CCleaner is delayed for more than 2sec)

    But software that is actually installed (program files, ex: Firefox) everything is working fine, no delay.
     
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.