Piriform makers of ccleaner announce cloud based cleaner

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by clubhouse, Aug 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    How MyCleanPC is even still allowed to air commercials is beyond me, but yeah, this seems to be a worthless service. I've never, not even on the most random, silliest day heard anyone say "Gosh, I forgot to get rid of my browser history/clean my registry today..and shoot if I'm not sitting up here in IHOP away from my computer. REALLY wish I could do it from here".

    I mean, it isn't even something a network admin in a corporate environment would need or want to do from a remote location. I have no idea what imbecile in a Piriform meeting piped up with this idea, but they should have immediately been given a "Wtf" look by everyone in the room and then told to clean out their desk.
     
  2. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    11,126
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Well even though not directly related, i'm ceasing anymore use of Piriform programs including Ccleaner and not recommending it any longer to my own customers and friends unless they stop this new insane practice.

    What in the world is come over vendors like this. Are they intentionally trying to drown their own reputations and business?

    I highly recommend the dependable and privacy protection app PrivaZer!
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2013
  3. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    Privazer is still too new and unknown to me to put a lot of faith in it. It, CCleaner and others like it are also debatable in how needed or risky they are to use.

    I don't know if I'd dump CCleaner because of one really stupid idea getting past the boardroom, but I get your point and I don't much care for the "cloud" myself.
     
  4. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    11,126
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    You might be surprised how far along PrivaZer has progressed along and is IMHO is long since proven a much better alternative to CC.

    But i will further add that if PrivaZer ever attempts to duplicate what Piriform is doing, it too would find attention to it's program swiftly dismissed in kind.

    Given the current accurate revelations of blatant forced privacy intrusions it's a no brainier suicide business decision to so soon pull this type of debacle.
     
  5. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    163,052
    Location:
    Texas
    Let's stay on the thread topic.
     
  6. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    Not necessarily, after all, people are still happily using Google and Microsoft. I'll give Privazer a try though. I dug up some review threads here and most everyone seem to be on board with it.
     
  7. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    In order to work, system cleaners must have access to the hard drive- your files, documents, registry.
    Who is to say that the traditional cleaners don't already send data to someone/somewhere ?

    I can see a time in the not too distant future where Microsoft and Apple develop operating systems that are totally cloud-based and will be unable to run any application that is not also cloud-based.
    Support for all other (previous) operating systems is ended and third party vendors wanting to stay in business are required to market only compatible applications and also end support for any that are non-cloud-based.

    Orwellian ?
    Perhaps, but look at where the industry and society in general is already headed.
     
  8. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    MS is already well on its way with Office, and Windows 8 started the move with its, admittedly optional, cloud accounts. Anyway, yeah, any software can be capable of "phoning home". The only way to know is by using a software firewall and being careful.
     
  9. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    3,344
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen

    Ya, but you can check and block it with a firewall.
     
  10. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    Nope a hardware one, preferably open-source. Windows (and OS X) is a lost case imo.
     
  11. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    With their current systems, I'd agree. With the older versions of Windows the user still has the final say. They might be able to eliminate future options available to users, such as making all operating systems cloud based and making certain that the hardware won't run anything else, but they can't force this onto existing systems.

    Hypothetically, even Privazer could become a cloud based app with the next release. Even if it did, it couldn't force you to install that next version or disable the version you have.
     
  12. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    Really, how old? Do you use Windows 95 pre-OSR2?

    People got betrayed by their own government, so I guess the hysteria is founded.
     
  13. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,102
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    i like ccleaner and will have to see how this pans out. im a bit suspicious now that newer updates of ccleaner will attempt to either include this without asking OR send data and statistics to them when using it, if this is the case i will cease using it as well as literally phone every customer i have using it and also attempt to get them to do the same. as long as this does not affect the current ccleaner ill be okay using it. but otherwise they are gone.
     
  14. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    We're going OT, but it does still indirectly apply. I'm using a very stripped down and modified version of 98SE. I'm aware of the NSA key. Many of the functions of ADVAPI.dll depend on Internet Explorer, which is completely stripped out of my system.

    My reasons for being more trusting of the older operating systems are these.
    1, Regardless of what services or functions they're tied to or claimed to be for, open ports serve one purpose, receiving incoming connections and traffic. On the older systems, there's far fewer open ports. Those that are open can be easily closed. By closed, I mean not listening at all, not just blocked by a firewall. On 98, one changed setting closes the only open ports, 137-139. On XP, one had to dig thru and disable a lot of services to close every port, but it can be done. I don't know of anyone who has been able to close all of the ports on Win 7 or 8. On XP and older, you can disable the ability to receive incoming connections. On Vista and newer, you can block it but you can't disable it.

    2, On XP and older systems, the user can strip out most of the bloat and unnecessary services. Using XPLite, my XP unit is well under 3GB, which includes Virtualbox, java, and Libre office. Thanks in part to 98Lite, my default system is under 1GB in size, including VPC. On both, much of the potential attack surface is either disabled or removed completely. If I assume that both OS have built in remote access components for the NSA, they're unusable if they can't connect to them. Unless the NSA has some means of connecting to a PC that can bypass both hardware and software firewalls and can work thru NAT, there is no available direct access to these systems if the user closed all the ports. Is it even possible to really strip down Win 7 or 8?

    3, Each new OS requires more background processes than its predecessor. With the NT systems, many of these became services, more under the control of the OS itself than the user. Just for a comparison, my default 98 system has 6 core processes. During normal use, there's 16 running including security apps, Tor and the browser. Starting at Win 2K, each service pack adds new services and/or disables the users ability to shut certain services off. Take the event log on XP for example. In addition to its usefulness for fixing problems, it's also quite a babysitter, recording most everything you've done. With each service pack, more of these services were given internet access by default for things most users would never need. You'd think Slammer would have driven home the folly of that practice. Instead, the newer operating systems have even more ports open by default. I don't believe for a minute that the services behind these open ports can't be exploited or that it's physically impossible to bypass the routers, modems, etc that stands between them and the internet.

    4, The present systems don't allow users of HIPS the same level of control over the operating system. Global hooks are not allowed like they were on XP and older systems. Instead it's integrity levels and permissions. These are fine for applications but don't give users the same control over the OS itself, especially at a service level. While the user never has had total control over the operating system, each new OS has added more processes and functions and has taken more of the users ability to control them away while keeping records of more and more of the users activities. From a privacy perspective, Windows has gone from irritating with the 9X systems to invasive with XP. From Vista onwards, Windows is proving hostile to user privacy.

    Back on topic, it appears that many user applications are following the same path as Windows. Apps that don't need internet access to work are given it. They're adding behaviors that are more useful for monitoring the user than they are to the user. They store activity records that are of little use to a user. The companies behind them change their policies without the user knowing unless the user reads that mind numbing legalese every time it updates, assuming the user even knows when each auto-updates. Too often, the few good security or privacy apps available to users either disappear or get absorbed by a big company only to disappear or get completely ruined.

    Looking at the current situation, the revealing of global spying, rulings that changing your IP is becoming a computer crime, encryption being evidence of something to hide, etc, I wholly expect that apps like Privazer, CCleaner, Eraser, and others will become illegal under the guise of destroying evidence, evidence that each new OS collects more of than its predecessor did, with many user apps doing the same thing. For these and other reasons, I'll stay with an older system that's more under my control. If I need something more current, I'll run it virtual where I can choose not to save the changes, which includes usage tracks.
     
  15. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    11,126
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    I totally agree with most if not all what's been pointed out in great detail i might add. It was very wise you kept your 98 systems more now then ever and XP is definitely a keeper when it comes to complete user satisfaction given the privacy intrusion element that's being forced on the scene today.

    Piriform should at least offer a REASONABLE explaination why all of the sudden this cloud feature is needed at all given all the present uncertainty relating to trust issues

    Not to wander too far off topic either, but the #4 IS EXACTLY what i find inconceivable in a windows platform, and you'll easily find occasional requests and hints i personally keep driving at for the need of a classical HIPS for more secure monitoring with today's current windows system which is sorely lacking for them.

    Getting back to Piriform cloud based cleaner, this release was certain to initiate a fierce debate instead of being recognized as a welcome new feature. Unlike traditional cloud storages where a user is free to protect their own data via encryption and what have you before storing offsite to a remote machine, most learned people right now are simply not confident with the mere mention of cloud anything where their data could risk being misused by spammers or even worse.

    But if nothing else, in this current trend of vacuuming up data via certain clouds becoming ever more prevalent to doing as they may with it (since it's their servers not yours), Piriform is at least the very first cleaner vendor to spark such a debate on it's usefullness versus trust issue.
     
  16. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    @noone_particular: I can see how you cripple it, but I tend to trust open-source more for privacy until a Windows version is completely verified to be under user control.

    The situation is heading that way indeed, until real change occurs.
     
  17. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    I totally agree with you regarding Open Source. I choose Open Source apps whenever possible with Tor, SeaMonkey, Eraser 5.7, Notepad++, etc being my first choices. For the actual security software, I haven't found any Open Source apps that fit my requirements. There's also no Open Source virtualization software for 9X systems that I'm aware of.

    If all things were equal, I would also be running an Open Source OS, but for me all things aren't equal. I don't doubt that linux and BSD are more secure than Windows out of the box. If I compare out of the box linux to my modified and secured copies of Windows, I'm not sure it's still true. It would take a very long time for me to understand linux or BSD as well as I do the older versions of Windows, probably several years of time that I don't have to spare. My understanding of Linux is very limited. I doubt that I could effectively secure it to the same degree. There's other things about linux that bother me, like the lack of application specific outbound firewalls and a simple way to disable all connecting out until I tell it to. Given the options, I chose the evil I best understand.

    Regarding "real change", I fear things will get much worse before they get any better. IMO, nothing short of a total economic collapse or a global uprising is going to change things. Things like the internet kill switch are there to preempt an uprising. Apps and operating systems that report your every move pretty much defeat the potential of an uprising before it can get going, unless every user takes extreme precautions. That pretty much leaves waiting for this system to collapse under its own weight, a situation that's closer than most would ever believe. This present system is very much like the economy itself. It's either growing or its dying. There's a limited amount of everything, from energy to raw materials to room to build. Anything that has to constantly grow to survive spelled out its own end when it started.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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.