Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Julianon

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Julianon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sydney, Australia
  1. I have just updated to Windows 1903 and turned on the clipboard history. When there were a few entries in the clipboard history list: --- I launched CCleaner 5.60.7307 portable. --- I checked that 'clipboard' was checked under custom clean --> Windows --> System. --- I ran CCleaner. Unfortunately, the whole clipboard history is still there, including the most recent clip. - - - - - - - - I need hardly say how dangerous this is. People copy passwords, contact details, . . . using the clipboard, and there was previously little problem because only the most recent clip was kept. Now all the clips are all kept, after reboot, and potentially for a long time. CCleaner users will be expecting that when they tick 'clipboard', all those entries will disappear each time CCleaner is run, but they don't. Could I suggest that Piriform: 1. Update CCleaner as soon as possible to fix this. 2. In the meantime, advise its users of the security problem, and the fact that they need to go to Settings --> System --> Clipboard --> Clear to get rid of their old clips. - - - - - - - - I very much doubt that Windows is overwriting old clips in the way that CCleaner can do, and the old clips can surely be recovered by an expert. I am turning off Clipboard history until it is established that CCleaner is working properly on the Clipboard history, and is overwriting that history securely.
  2. Thanks, Augeas. That makes sense because safety with respect to deleting possibly important stuff trumps cleaning. This means that the only solution would be for CCleaner to issue a warning that the sandboxes were in a non-standard position and so need indivdual attention. But if you knew enough computing to understand that message, you would already have realised that the sandboxes weren't being deleted, and you would also know how to fix it. CONCLUSION: Leave things as they are.
  3. I just moved my four Sandboxie sandboxes from C:\Sandbox to D:\Sandbox because C: drive is SS and D: drive is a disk, and I had read an article about the life of SS drives. I have always had Sandboxie ticked so that CCleaner could clean the sandboxes (which I only use for browsing), but.I found that CCleaner did not clean the sandboxes in their new location. I fixed this fairly easily by adding the four sandboxes separately using Options --> Include, and left Sandboxie ticked. I was surprised, however, that CCleaner didn't clean the moved sandboxes, because I thought that it would read.the new sandbox location from the Sandboxie INI file. Is this perhaps something that CCleaner may be taught to do in the future?
  4. I have now re-installed version 4.19.4867, and I will now wait patiently for Piriform to give the option of the previous UI for those of us who are using Windows 7. Thanks very much, Piriform, for the excellent software you provide, and thanks in hope and expectation for sorting out this temporary glitch with the UI.
  5. I agree with all the points that Aelius73 raises — the new UI is really ugly, particularly when you are using Windows 7 with its aero. Please give us the option of switching to the old UI. Software should be pleasant to use, and it should blend with the windows of other software currently on the desktop. The option would allows Windows 8 and Windows 7 users to choose the two different styles.
  6. Once again, thanks very much mta. Your answers are what I had hoped, and look pretty sensible, and the second answer particularly is reassuring. I've sent a private email off to Winapp2.ini asking if he has any further wisdom on the subject. My simple questions about maintaining cookie privacy have quickly got astonishingly complicated.
  7. Thank you very much indeed, mta, for this advice. The Firefox URLs that you gave explain things well, and the Firefox URL "about:permissions" was a revelation to me! I reckon that clears up just about everything, but I have two more very specific questions: QUESTION 1: Is there any information contained in the two files "content-prefs.sqlite" and "permissions.sqlite" that is *not* displayed by about:permissions? I am hoping that the answer here is, "No". QIESTION 2: When I visit a website, can that website read the contents of the two files "content-prefs.sqlite" and "permissions.sqlite" off my computer? For example, at the very least these files contain a list of websites that I visit seriously enough to allow cookies for — I don't really want a shop to know what other shops I regularly visit. Again, I am hoping that the answer here is, "No". By the way, I am not paranoid. I just live in the post-Snowden era.
  8. Thanks once again for all that feedback. I'll have one more go at clarifying the question, in painful detail this time, before writing directly for support. I believe that the question has general interest, but is rather technical in nature, so that Piriform's techies themselves should therefore answer it on the Forum. I performed the following operations: * Uncheck Cleaner - - > Applications - - > Site Preferences (all other Firefox boxes checked) and then perform "Run Cleaner". * Check Cleaner - - > Applications - - > Site Preferences and then perform just "Analyse". The "Analyse" operation found the following two files in my Firefox profile (Windows 7 Pro): * content-prefs.sqlite * permissions.sqlite (plus two files called "cont" and "perm" buried deep in Kaspersky's "SafeBrowser" directories — presumably analogous). I did not go on to perform "Run Cleaner", so these two files (plus the two Kaspersky ones) are still there. QUESTION: 1. Are the contents of these two files some form of cookies? 2. Do these two files compromise my privacy in any way whatsoever?
  9. Thanks for these replies. Everything about cookies seems extremely complicated, and it looks as if I should also ask the "Cookie Controller" developers what is going on. I am not a techie, and I do not know what the term "cookie permissions" means in tecthnical language, even though we all routinely use cookie permissions in Firefox -- > Tools - - > Options - - > Privacy and in various Firefox cookie addons. What I would like from a CCleaner techie is the answers to the two questions in my first post: * What other data apart from just the cookie permissions is retained when "Site preferences" is unchecked"? * Are the Firefox files that contain the cookie permissions themselves classified as "cookies"? plus some advice as to how to achieve the aims that I set out in my original post.
  10. Thanks, MTA = 3.14159 . . . But I don't want to keep any cookies --- I only want to keep the *coookie permissions". The situation, and my questions, are as I explained them in my first post.
  11. Does anyone have any wisdom on this issue? I have not been able to work it out.
  12. My excellent "Cookie Controller" addon for Firefox allows me fine control over the cookies for each site that I visit, but I now have a problem with CCleaner. At each site: * I want to set the precise cookie permissions and retain them through CCleaner cleaning. * I nevertheless want to use CCleaner to delete *all* cookies after each visit. Unchecking "Cleaner - - > Applications - - > Site Preferences" has the result that the permissions are retained. But as far as I can understand as non-techie, it also results in other data being retained, which I don't want to happen. How do I achieve what I want to do? I know that this question has been asked before, and I have read the answers, but I am still unclear on two precise points: * What other data apart from just the cookie permissions is retained when "Site preferences" is unchecked"? * Are the Firefox files that contain the cookie permissions themselves classified as "cookies"? Perhaps I should be writing my own little batch file!
  13. Updating: FileHippo is now reporting that my installed version of Recuva is 1.43.623, which it describes as the "newest version", and is no longer asking me to update. So the situation is resolved.as far as I am concerned. Interestingly, Recuva's..installed exe file, at the usual location C:\Program Files\Recuva\recuva.exe, remains Version 1.43.0.623. I wonder why Piriform is numbering its versions like this, with 1.43.0.623 on the installed .exe file, 1.43.623 as the advertised version on its website (and on FileHippo), and 1.0.0.0 on its downloaded installation file? It does all seems designed to cause confusion.
  14. The current downloaded Recuva installation file, from both Piriform and FileHippo, is called version 1.43.623 on their websites (although the installation file itself is labelled Version 1.0.0.0). When Recuva is installed from the FileHippo download, however, the version number of recuva.exe in C:\Program Files\Recuva is 1.43.0.623. The situation is unchaged when I uninstall Recuva, delete the directory C:\Progrram Files\Recuva, and then reinstall Recuva from the Piriform download. FileHippo is still complaining that Recuva needs updating --- it says that Version 1.43.0.623 is installed, and that I should update to Version 1.43.623. Clearly there is confusion about the number of the current version, and FileHippo is misreporting the need for an update. I have emailed FileHippo, but they do not reply to emails, and the situation with their website is uinchanged after two days. Because re-installation using the download from Piriform involves exactly the same confusion, it seems to be Piriform's responsibility to resolve the problem.
  15. Thanks for that clear explanation. Now it all makes sense. The problem is that it is now quite inconvenient to overwrite all files in C: drive or D: drive, because each time Recuva scans, it throws up Thunderbird emails.zip. When I highlight everything, I can't then "Delete Highlighted". I first have to go and seek out Thunderbird emails.zip and unhighlight it - quite inconvenient. Perhaps an item could be placed in the "Options". Easier still, just exempt Thunderbird emails.zip from the overwriting even though it is highlighted.
×
×
  • Create New...