Questions about PUPs and Emsisoft

[HAWKI]

I believe that  Emisoft should be commended for taking an aggressive stand against PUPs which most A/V companies are afraid to do because of potential legal consequences.

 

I do have a few questions:

 

Does Emisoft block the installation of PUPs or does it just prevent them from operating and/or offers to remove them if found after a scan?

 

Does Emisoft target all PUPs or just those that have the potential capability of acting maliciously rather than just being annoyances?

 

Having once had Conduit somehow installed on my system I am a bit paranoid about some PUPs like Conduit which can hijack browser home pages and search engines and be a pain to get rid of . I have been using with EMIS a light program called "Unchecky" that assures that you did not fail to notice on an installer a check mark authorizing installation of a PUP. It unchecks boxes on installers authoriaing the installation of a PUP and appears to claim it blocks the installation of some other PUPs through other methods. It's a free download that was given a 5 star rating by the editors at Softpedia.

 

Is this a redundant program if I am using EAM or  EMIS?

 

http://unchecky.com/

 

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Unchecky.shtml

[Fabian Wosar]

Does Emisoft block the installation of PUPs or does it just prevent them from operating and/or offers to remove them if found after a scan?

Both actually.

 

Does Emisoft target all PUPs or just those that have the potential capability of acting maliciously rather than just being annoyances?

Everything. If you find we don't detect a specific PUP, feel free to submit it and we will add detection for it.

 

Is this a redundant program if I am using EAM or  EMIS?

There will most certainly be an overlap. Whether or not it is redundant is up to you. Personally I trust myself to select the right check boxes when installing stuff. So it most certainly would be redundant for me .

[digmor crusher]

Unchecky is for people who click yes, yes, yes when installing something without reading what they are clicking on, not for guys like you Fabian.

[Fabian Wosar]

I doubt any software will be able to protect people blindly clicking on "Yes", "Accept", "Continue", and "OK" buttons .

[INeedAMedic]

I doubt any software will be able to protect people blindly clicking on "Yes", "Accept", "Continue", and "OK" buttons .

I also encountered when a software trick me, and the users by replace deny,no,decline option with yes option because they know that users will click them. For instance, when you install Java is will ask you do you want to install McAfee tools? and there will be two options which is Yes and No. But one thing you didn't know is both of the options is Yes. So to me PUP is considered like malware even though their behavior is difference and who want PUP on their machine even they didn't considered installed it which is taking up their space?

[ShadowPuterDude]

I also encountered when a software trick me, and the users by replace deny,no,decline option with yes option because they know that users will click them. For instance, when you install Java is will ask you do you want to install McAfee tools? and there will be two options which is Yes and No. But one thing you didn't know is both of the options is Yes. So to me PUP is considered like malware even though their behavior is difference and who want PUP on their machine even they didn't considered installed it which is taking up their space?

I highly doubt that. Oracle's legal department would not allow such activity for 2 reasons: 1) it is highly unethical and 2) Opens Oracle to civil action from consumers and governments.

[INeedAMedic]

I highly doubt that. Oracle's legal department would not allow such activity for 2 reasons: 1) it is highly unethical and 2) Opens Oracle to civil action from consumers and governments.

I believe PUP is going to be wild, because cyber criminals can use "PUP" as an excuses to get other victims infected. Is like in the past when adware was not really dangerous, but somehow they begins to known as malware spreading techniques because a lot of cyber criminal use "adware" term as an excuse to back them off for their action. Whether or not, i wouldn't want either one of those on my machine. In today world i see a lot  developers try to by pass antivirus pup prevention feature by signed their file or doing stealth installing or whatever is take go slip into user machine. So i think this is going to be a problem, especially for a malware disguise themself as a piece of software.

[Fabian Wosar]

That may be correct, doesn't change the fact that PUPs are a problem for every anti-virus vendor and you have to be careful not to get sued. You may not like the business model of registry cleaners for example, but that doesn't give you the right to label them as malicious.

[INeedAMedic]

That may be correct, doesn't change the fact that PUPs are a problem for every anti-virus vendor and you have to be careful not to get sued. You may not like the business model of registry cleaners for example, but that doesn't give you the right to label them as malicious.

Well, i just want to know is EAM and EIS scan the file for a specific malwares or PUPs when you execute it or download it? Because i know the fact AVAST as the default settings disable PUP detection.

[ShadowPuterDude]

PUP detection is disabled by default. PUP detection must be enabled by the end-user at installation or can be enabled at a latter time by changing the settings under Protection -> File Guard.

PUP's are not malware, annoying and a questionable practice, but they are not malware; and we do not treat them as such.

[INeedAMedic]

PUP detection is disabled by default. PUP detection must be enabled by the end-user at installation or can be enabled at a latter time by changing the settings under Protection -> File Guard.PUP's are not malware, annoying and a questionable practice, but they are not malware; and we do not treat them as such.

Can you post picture for me please?

[Christian Peters]

Hello,