Malware log bug?

[Immaculens]

I just did a scan and it found 8 tracking cookies.

Yet after I fixed them - they did not show up as ever being detected in the log!

 

I wanted to copy these tracking cookies and send them to Ghostery, for example....

 

 

Advanced SystemCare Ultimate Log

====================================

Application Version: 6.0.6.263

Database Version: 53692

Scan Mode: Manual

x64 Bit:Yes

Windows 7

2012-11-17(10-25-55)

====================================

[Threats Detected]: 0 Threats Detected

------Details------

 

[Registry Scan]: 112 Problems Detected

[Immaculens]

once again - the Malware scan found 33 types of tracking cookies. I then click to 'fix' them.

 

I then looked in the log and it says: 0 Threats Detected

 

yet it found 33

 

 

Advanced SystemCare Ultimate Log

====================================

Application Version: 6.0.6.263

Database Version: 53692

Scan Mode: Manual

x64 Bit:Yes

Windows 7

2012-11-18(15-28-52)

====================================

[Threats Detected]: 0 Threats Detected

------Details------

[Cicely]

Hi Immaculens,

 

Would you please try it again to help us look into it?

 

1. Please kindly make a screenshot of the detailed Malware scan result window. To open the detailed Malware Scan result window, please click "Malware Removal" after the scan is finished.

 

Guide for taking screenshot: http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/general/ht/winscreenshot.htm

 

2. Repair those problems

 

3. Send the screenshot and the repair log to us for further check.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Immaculens]

Sure I'll be happy to. I have to wait until a scan detects malware again...

[Immaculens]

I was visiting my folks and gave one of my ASC U licenses to them so I could see how the malware scan & log behaved for their Win XP Home pc.

 

The Malware Scan detected tracking cookies and so did the log file. So it works just as it should.

 

I am still awaiting my Malware scan to find more tracking cookies so I can take the appropriate screen captures of what it find and then show the log file for you - on my Win 7 Home

[Cicely]

Hi Immaculens,

 

That's all right. We are looking forward to your reply.

 

Thanks.

[Immaculens]

Hello Cicely ~

 

I had send an email with screen shots of the issue (detected Malware not showing up in the log file) and long story short -

I was advised to close my browsers during the 'fixing' phase - and that did the trick - detected malware ended up in the log.

I did have very bizarre things happen in conjunction with two Chrome extensions which block all sorts of tracking cookies and advertising malware - and the ASC U Malware scan. Too long to discuss the whole thing long story short:

.

when I enabled Ghostery extension - the ASC U Malware scan was finding 36+ malware traces. when I disabled Ghostery - ASC U would typically find none or maybe 1. Enable ghostery again and ASC U would find 36-41 Malwares with all my open tabs.... its weird... but not Iobit's real concern I guess.

 

But if anyone in the field cares to play with Ghostery & Do Not Track Plus in the fashion I describe above, feel free

[Buddahfan]

once again - the Malware scan found 33 types of tracking cookies. I then click to 'fix' them.

 

I then looked in the log and it says: 0 Threats Detected

 

yet it found 33

 

 

Advanced SystemCare Ultimate Log

====================================

Application Version: 6.0.6.263

Database Version: 53692

Scan Mode: Manual

x64 Bit:Yes

Windows 7

2012-11-18(15-28-52)

====================================

[Threats Detected]: 0 Threats Detected

------Details------

 

I have been following the progress of the thread.

 

Just curious as I don't recall this being mentioned before in this thread? Sorry if I missed this.

 

Under "Anti-Virus"--------->"Settings"--------->"Scan Settings"------>"Action on Detection" do you have it set to Auto or Notify?

[Immaculens]

in the 'Anti-Virus' I have it set to notify me, but I'm not referring to the Anti-Virus above, I'm referring to the Malware Scan in the 'Care' Section.

[Scannan]

Immaculens

 

I believe the issue with Ghostery is simply that, when Ghostery is active, the Malware Scan sees the list of Trackers that Ghostery blocked (or is blocking on the active tabs) and identifies them as malware.

It seems that your protection from both ASC and Ghostery is working very well.

 

I also have Ghostery and I think it is excellent.

[Buddahfan]

Immaculens

 

I believe the issue with Ghostery is simply that, when Ghostery is active, the Malware Scan sees the list of Trackers that Ghostery blocked (or is blocking on the active tabs) and identifies them as malware.

It seems that your protection from both ASC and Ghostery is working very well.

 

I also have Ghostery and I think it is excellent.

 

Thanks for the info. I also use Ghostery.

 

However, I never run a AV program scan with my Browsers open. In fact not only that but I run my cleaners before doing a AV scan. The reason I do it this way is because a lot of malware stores itself at least initially in a "temp" directory or as a "*.temp" file so I clean the temp files and temp directories among other files and directories first before running a scan.

 

 

I do run SAS Pro scheduled scans during the day time and occassionally it finds tracking cookies that it removes. I expressely have SAS Pro run scheduled scans during the time I will be using the Browser so that it can clean up some tracking cookies not blocked by Ghostery and my other Cookie blockers.

[Immaculens]

Additionally I'm using Do Not Track Plus suggested in a previous post. Its interesting to see what Ghostery catches and what Do not Track catches - 'generally' it looks like ghostery is the better so I'll likely axe the Do Not Track Plus.

 

Good thread. If ASC U could get an email scanner it would be closer to par with AVG & Norton

[Cicely]

Hi Immaculens,

 

Thanks for your suggestion. I’ve written it down and will let our decision makers know for consideration.

 

Let us know if you have any other suggestions.:mrgreen:

[Buddahfan]

Additionally I'm using Do Not Track Plus suggested in a previous post. Its interesting to see what Ghostery catches and what Do not Track catches - 'generally' it looks like ghostery is the better so I'll likely axe the Do Not Track Plus.

 

Good thread. If ASC U could get an email scanner it would be closer to par with AVG & Norton

 

I don't know about AVG or Norton but I do know that people have issues with the Spam filter on Both avast! AIS 7 and Bitdefender IS 2013. In following the posts on the avast! and Bitdefender forums a lot of those problems appear to be with Microsoft Outlook and a few with Thunderbird. Then again a lot more people are using Outlook than are using Thunderbird.

 

Having said that adding a Spam filter to ASCU would be nice and I will second the idea.:smile:

[Immaculens]

I only use Outlook Express or what is now called Windows Live Mail.

 

 

Back to the Malware scan (not to be confused with the AV scan) - I find it most interesting how I can do manual scan again and again and it finds nothing - BUT - suddenly - BAM - 35+ Malware items are found...

 

this is a repeating phenomenon.

 

It would surprise me that I suddenly visit websites that are packed full of 'undetected malware items' that Ghostery (for example) does not block because its not aware of their existence...

 

So, this phenomenon eludes me at present....

 

Comments?

[Buddahfan]

once again - the Malware scan found 33 types of tracking cookies. I then click to 'fix' them.

 

I then looked in the log and it says: 0 Threats Detected

 

yet it found 33

 

 

Advanced SystemCare Ultimate Log

====================================

Application Version: 6.0.6.263

Database Version: 53692

Scan Mode: Manual

x64 Bit:Yes

Windows 7

2012-11-18(15-28-52)

====================================

[Threats Detected]: 0 Threats Detected

------Details------

 

In thinking about this some more.

 

Are you using Firefox?

 

Some months ago Firefox made a change to their code that results in Adware items being stored as cookies in the user's Firefox profile, more specifically as sqlite files if I recall correctly.

 

I use SAS Pro and it cleans them whenever it finds them which is usually a couple of hours after I open Firefox each day. I have SAS Pro set to run a daily scheduled scan a couple of hours after I usually open Firefox. If I open Firefox on any day later than that scheduled san I have a scheduled scan set for late in the afternoon which will catch and clean these adware cookies. If SAS Pro cleans them while Firefox is open they do not appear again until I re-open Firefox after closing it.

 

I spent some time trying to understand what was going on with these adware cookies with respect to Firefox but I never could never a conclusive answer that I was satisfied with.

 

I mention this because if you are using Firefox it could be this is what the ASCU scan is finding. Then again it may not.:-)

[Immaculens]

I had been using 99% Chrome for the above reference - and the log issue was remedied when I closed Chrome.

 

However, due to someone's post on this forum that Chrome = Malware wearing a browser - I have now uninstalled Chrome and only use FF now.

 

Just this moment I ran a scan which included Malware detection and it found one - from FF - and I kept FF open while I clicked "Fix" - and regardless it still showed that there was a Malware detected. Versus - when I used Chrome - which after a 'Fix' it never reported having found or fixed any.

 

Golly, FF sure is slower vs Chrome though...

[Toppack]

Why are you not using IE-9?

It's Great!

[Immaculens]

Why are you not using IE-9?

It's Great!

 

reading the above I thought "what the heck, I've avoided IE for about 6 years now - why not see how friendly it is after all this time..."

 

its not installing two of my favorite Ad-ons, being: Ad Block Plus, and Ghostery.

 

Ad Block Plus is not available for IE, and Ghostery just hangs during install...

 

Its not allowing me to uninstall Bing as the search provider...

 

and wow do I hate the "Manage Ad-Ons" user interface...

 

If I can find a decent AdBlock Plus alternative, and if I can get Ghostery installed somehow, I'll give IE a chance...:twisted:

[Buddahfan]

I had been using 99% Chrome for the above reference - and the log issue was remedied when I closed Chrome.

 

However, due to someone's post on this forum that Chrome = Malware wearing a browser - I have now uninstalled Chrome and only use FF now.

 

Just this moment I ran a scan which included Malware detection and it found one - from FF - and I kept FF open while I clicked "Fix" - and regardless it still showed that there was a Malware detected. Versus - when I used Chrome - which after a 'Fix' it never reported having found or fixed any.

 

Golly, FF sure is slower vs Chrome though...

 

Not all anti-malware files detect or even consider the same file as malware. If you still have FF on your computer load it and then close it. Download the portable version or the free version of SAS. Run a scan. My guess is that it will find and clean the Malware. Then rescan with ASCU and my guess is that it will come up clean.

The point of this is that unless you can tell us specifically where the so called malware is located when ASCU detects it my guess is that you are seeing sqlite files containing adware.

 

I agree with you about Chrome but I think it is more a privacy issue with them than anything. I don't use any Google products or even their search anymore except for Google Alerts. I only use Google Alerts because I haven't found replacement for it. I do have a Kindle which of course is a Droid based hardware product. However it is not a Google product.

 

With regards to IE9. I use it once in a while, mostly when my FF security is blocking access to some of the features I want to use on a website. One example of this is the ESPN NBA Trade Machine. The way I have FF configured it blocks being able to create or view a trade. I checked and I am pretty sure that this is due to Chostery. Rarely do I manually override Ghostery and won't do it for the ESPN website especially since I so rarely visit it. So I use IE9 when I want to go to that ESPN website.

 

I don't really care for IE9 because it

 

1. Creates and stores "active x" files. WinPatrol Plus will give me the option to block at least some of them but using IE9 and blocking active x files is like running a six cylinder car on five cylinders.

 

2. IE9 also creates a lot of temporary files. A lot more than FF. I don't like temporary files created by my Browser. Too much malware resides in tempoary files

 

3. IE9 incorporates their version of Flash. This means that when Flash has a zero day exploit that you have to wait for Microsoft to push through a fix for Flash. I would rather install the fix sooner from Adobe than wait for Microsoft to push it through. While Micorosft may push the fix through as quickly as Adobe makes it publicly available I have found no proof of this as of yet.

 

4. IE9 will does not have access to some of my very favorite FF addons. I tried using oher software like Windows Live to do he same thing. However, I much prefer the FF addon that does the same thing and stores the add on related user data locally which I prefer.

[Immaculens]

just installed Chrome again! lol

 

FF has the features I like but after 48 hrs using it exclusively - it just loads pages way way too slow vs Chrome.

 

Maybe Adblock Plus or some other extension I'm using slows it down...

 

Sorry - what is the SAS you refer to? I see a SAS that is some kind of statistical software...

 

cheers

 

 

EDIT: SAS ==>> SUPERAntiSpyware

[Buddahfan]

just installed Chrome again! lol

 

FF has the features I like but after 48 hrs using it exclusively - it just loads pages way way too slow vs Chrome.

 

Maybe Adblock Plus or some other extension I'm using slows it down...

 

Sorry - what is the SAS you refer to? I see a SAS that is some kind of statistical software...

 

cheers

 

 

EDIT: SAS ==>> SUPERAntiSpyware

 

If you like speed, then FF is definitely not the Browser for you. However, if you prefer Security, Privacy and more control of your Browser then Firefox is the better choice. Though many would argue some using test results that Chrome is more secure than Firefox. That might be without extensions. However, with the correct extensiolns Firefox which has more of them, is more secure in my opinion.

 

SAS = SuperAntiSpyware. You can find the link to their website by searching for it with your favorite search tool. Some people think of it as a competitor of Malwarebytes. Mlalwarebytes is a lot more popular. I use SAS Pro (real-time) and Malwarebytes Free (On Demand Scans).

 

I originally choose SAS Pro over Malwarebytes Pro because SAS Pro had some features in it that Malwarebytes didn't have. I have a lifetime license for SAS Pro, it works fine in real-time mode along with IMF Pro and with my other security software. It does find and delete adware cookies when it scans and occasionally even blocks a Trojan trying to enter my system through a website. So I keep using it rather than pay for three Malwarebyes licienses.

[Toppack]

IE-9 Rocks ! :!:

8-) :lol:

[Scannan]

Hi Immaculens

 

The new FF versions can be slower than Chrome especially depending on the FF addons installed.

 

I went back to FF 4 and it is great. No speed problems and I have Addblock Plus, Blocksite and Ghostery running.

 

Tried Chrome, did not likeit at all, and also did not like the amount of tracking and analytics it employed.

[Immaculens]

Thank-you for the participation & input Scannan

 

I'm curious what steps/measures you take of added security by using a much earlier version of FF?

 

It seems every or every other update by browsers include security fixes. FF are currently on version 17 and you regressed to 4.

 

I'll check out the Blocksite add-on.

 

It has also been my observation, as you mention, that certain add-ons will slow down the loading of webpages and its likely that is one of my FF usage issues

 

When I visit my parents - I always tweak mom's XP home pc and I noticed that pages were processing and taling their time loading if the "AdBlock Plus" was enabled. Chrome is much more zippy in its utilization of AdBlock Plus (and perhaps Ghostery, but I've not done any tests.

 

I'd regress to FF 4 on my mom's XP if I figured there was enough security...