is UPHClean a 'registered program'?

[2harts4ever]

Good morning,

This is a spin-off of the preceding question I submitted (Defender flagging
a known program).

Can anyone who uses 'UPHClean' tell me if it shows as 'permitted' or 'not
yet classified' when they go to Defender > Tools > Software Explorer >
Category (currently running Programs)?

Mine shows as 'not yet classified'.

Thanks and regards,

2harts4ever

 

[Stu]

Mine shows `Permitted`.

Stu

 

[2harts4ever]

Hi Stu,

I appreciate the response.

Could I get you to left click on the UPHClean listing and tell me what is
listed in the right window under (1) version and (2) file size?

Thanks and regards,

2harts4ever

 

[Stu]

Sure. No problem. I show in order requested:
1) 1.6.30.0
2) 241725

BTW. I`m running XP Home SP3
WD. 1.1.1593.0

Stu

 

[2harts4ever]

Hi Stu,

Thanks for the follow-up. I have the same two entries as you and I am
running WinXP SP3 too with the same Defender version loaded.

However, for one reason or another, under 'classification' it shows: "not
yet classified" and under 'SpyNet voting': "in progress". Also, under
'digitally signed by' it says: "NOT SIGNED".

I guess since Defender isn't 'permitting' it is the reason why I get those
two annoying error messages listed under Event Viewers 'System' log.

I also run Zone Alarm Internet Security Suite and right now they are having
a problem with their latest program version so I went back to the last good
one. I don't know if this could be the problem or not ... but I will keep
investigating.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. If you have any ideas
let 'em fly.

Regards,

2harts4ever

 

[Stu]

I`ll certainly do that for you. As it happens I run ZA pro as my PF. I
sometimes wonder if there is a preferential order in which one should install
these processes for them to run successfully. Why? Is anyone`s guess - not
least of all mine.

Stu

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Can you both look at UPHCLEAN using the software explorer?

I wonder if we can get a checksum or hash of the executable to prove whether
they are the same?

 

[Stu]

Yes I can and the info I provided was taken from the software explorer.

Stu

 

[Stu]

Question for you Bill OT. Why is the file size on disk different to the
actual file size? I`ve often wondered. Is there some info in there which
tells the FAT where to find it or something?

Thanks in advance.

Stu

 

[Stu]

There is one thing I`ve noticed with software explorer. It sometimes takes
awhile to settle down. That is, one minute I get the same result as you then
some time later the updated result to the one I`ve posted to you. Hope that
makes sense. One thing for sure. It has not been digitally signed by
Microsoft although the file was downloaded from their site. Here`s the link I
got mine from:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloadS/...6D-8912-4E18-B570-42470E2F3582&displaylang=en

Stu

 

[Bill Sanderson]

File space is allocated by the "cluster" Cluster size is determined when a
drive is formatted, and ranges from 512 up to I'm not sure what. With NTFS,
the most common sizes are 512 and 4096, with 4096 generally being far
preferable--the smaller cluster size can lead to greater fragmentation.

I think the difference between the sizes is the slack space in the last
cluster needed to store the file.

Cluster size is not easy to see in Windows, as I recall.

In Vista, you go to an elevated command prompt (i.e. right click and choose
run as administrator)

and type in

fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:

Modify as appropriate for the drive letter.

I have to say that I'm not sure of the answer if the drive is Fat, fat 16 or
fat32.

I think the above command works on XP but haven't tested it.

 

[Stu]

OK many thanks for the explanation. FWIW, I tried your command on my XP
machine and it seems to work. The sector and cluster size is given as 512KB
which, I light of what you have said, is not good. The external drive is
512/4096.

Stu

 

[Bill Sanderson]

512 is common in drives converted using the "convert" command from Fat32.

Unfortunately, you need a third party utility such as bootitng to change
this.

My technical details weren't perfect either--if a file is fragmented. there
will be several clusters with slack space in them--depending on the number
of fragments.

 

[Stu]

That is exactly what I did. The recovery disk that comes with this laptop
formats to FAT32 so I converted to a NTFS volume.

Stu

 

[Bill Sanderson]

This is not uncommon at all. I'm not clear whether the average general use
machine would see a perceptable performance difference by changing to 4096
clusters--servers definitely do, I believe.

 

[Stu]

Yeah. I think better leave alone lest I should get more than I bargained for.
I only converted to NTFS because I read somewhere that NTFS makes for more
efficient file allocation/storage on your hard drive? I`ve had some bad
experiences with third party apps that claimed to do wonderful things with
your system only to find I had a BSOD at the end of it!! You know, the one
with white hexadecimal writing on it which you get a fleeting glimpse of
before your system shuts down? Mine definately does not like Registry
Defragmenters. Last time I did that everything seemed to go fine UNTIL reboot
time! Thats when I received an error telling me that ntld.com was missing and
Windows would not boot. From my limited understanding of Windows I soon came
to realise that is a very serious file to be missing in the boot sequence
.........

Stu

 

[Bill Sanderson]

NTFS is more efficient and safer than Fat32. A 512 byte cluster is, on
average, less efficient than a 4096 byte cluster, but this isn't something
I'd worry about at all. If you are on XP, create a scheduled task to run
the command-line defragmenter regularly, and don't worry about it. On
Vista, the defragmenter is automatically run in the background once you
enable it.