General Discussions

Dumped them some time ago. They became obsolete given the improvements with Windoze included AV packages. I also use AVG (which I find has been merged with Avast) but plan to expose my test systems to the world just using Windows included AV apps to see whether AVG/AVAST is worth the additional cost/risk. I have been using Crashplan for B/U but they are cancelling "home" services in March. As long as I had Crashplan, I was not concerned about malware. Get hit, Just reformat, reimage the drive with the OS base image, restore the reg database that I back up daily via a sequence of Powershell commands, email the results to me, and restore the directory structure using the Crashplan restore interface, restore the registry, and I'm back in action. I have to confess I have never had to perform this sequence other than in a test environment. Decent firewall in place I guess.

My dilemma mow....Crashplan is going away for home geeks like me next March. Anybody have recommendations for a replacement? I have about 4 Windoze 10 / 7 boxes, a few Ubuntu boxes, and a number of transient Linus, Windows, and Mac boves. A fair amount of data.I don't want in home backup (NAS, ETC) storage..done that. I liked the Crashplan model.

A reminder to users:

Please be civil and respectful when reporting on their forums. Take this thread for example: Link

This has an inappropriate tag "douchebags" which is not professional and hurts our image as a community and causes more issues with the current standings between CH and Malwarebytes. I understand some of you are upset, but if you cannot or are unwilling to be professional, please do not respond on their forums.

[Edited by moderator Neo7, 10/21/2017 3:18:04 PM]

My MalwareBytes program updated itself yesterday and automatically hit me with a 30 day Premium version. Used to be you could skip that. Anyway, with it running, I thought innocently, in the background I went to CH and was immediately blocked. I knew it was BS so I quit MB and all was well again. Nasty trick MB!!! I am on my way to the forum right now to make my complaint.

Yes, Neo, I will be civil. 😀

I think there is quite a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this issue. Many seems to think the problem is the fact that some security software solutions report the cheathappens trainers as malware.

This is, of course, not the case. Several software solutions report that the trainers are potential malware, and this is perfectly normal. The trainers are separate programs lying in memory, attaching to other processes (programs) and changing the memory.

This is not that, this is MWB reporting the WEBSITE as being malicious.

From the original post, and what was written on MWBs forum, it was stated that MWB finds "pup.CoSMOS" on the website, and that this is the reason for the report of malicious content.

Can staff perhaps talk a little about what pup.CoSMOS means in this case?

I am not an expert on this things, by any means, but if I understand it correctly it looks like MWB believes that the software CoSMOS is on this website, and therefore reports it as being malicious.

Question: Could it be that what they find is CoSMOS? It is essentially the same as CoSMOS is it not? And maybe MWB just have "that sort of software" categorized as "pup.CoSMOS"?

I tried going to CoSMOS's website today, and even though I could move around there freely, the second I hit download my Eset Nod32 went haywire and blocked a site it apparently tried to open, as a malicious site.

That was Eset though, and not MWB.

Here is the scan results of the latest version of CoSMOS:


Link

and

Link

No PUP.CoSMOS detected and even shows as clean by the Malwarebytes scanner. CoSMOS is NOT CE. It is not a derivative of CE. It was made from scratch.

I even did a custom scan of the CoSMOS exe from WITHIN Malwarebytes and it shows NO THREATS.

Then this is all on Malwarebytes. They screwed up and they should want to fix this yet they insist CH is harmful, they really are shameful.

[Edited by NoSkoolThrasher, 10/21/2017 4:29:01 PM]

Just to be clear - I did not mean to insinuate that CoSMOS was CoSMOS. I was merely asking if it could be that it is identified as "that type of software"?

Could it be that, someone made the poor choice at one point or another to identify all types of memory editors as "pup.CoSMOS" whether they're malicous or not?

Of course, as it reports as clean, obviously it is something else.
It was the only thing I could think of. Often these security companies name their detections with very vague names, and often a common "type" of name to identify many different codes as being "that type" of code.

I do believe this must be some kind of misunderstanding, as it seems doubtful that they would just decide to mess with the site.

For me, I stand with CheatHappens in that this is a false positive. It turns into one of those "I believe that you believe it" type of scenarios, where I can believe that they find "something", but not necessarily exactly what they SAY they find.

As it stands, it is still on MWB to provide you with more accurate and detailed information on what they find and why, so that you can address it.