PUM's (potentially unwanted miners) warning

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by stapp, Dec 1, 2013.

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

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    7,311
    Location:
    England
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    This makes OpenCandy looks like a mini-boss. Hopefully all AVs will improve in the PUPs detection and prevention ability. Some of them aren't really serious about this one last time I checked it. :(
     
  3. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Indeed, unfortunately there will always be users that are seeing PUAs, PUPs, and PUMs, more or less as unnecessary close to FP detections wich of course isn't good either. They're detected for a good reason, and if you don't want them detected then most if not all products have the ability to turn such detections off and they won't be bothered anymore. But I would download my software from other locations than from known PUA sources, instead of disabling these detections. :)
     
  4. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Better AV first line defence of PUA's like OpenCandy as an example, would help unwanted infections.
     
  5. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    It does have a slither of bad brilliance/refinement in it when you dare to EULA someone into handing over 50% of his cpu/gpu time and any coins made instead of going for run of the mill ransomware. It just made me laugh. :p
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.