Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.

That's not true, right? Broken registry items just sit there doing
nothing, right, and when Windows needs to look in the registry, it might
take a millisecond longer to find something because the registry is
bigger than it might be, right?

Two different opinonons;
https://appuals.com/how-to-delete-broken-registry-items-on-windows/
https://computing.which.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/207143549-Should-I-clean-the-Windows-Registry-

micky wrote:

> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.

And WHO or WHAT told you that? Some rogue web site pretending it will
clean up your computer, but only does fake scans and won't actually do
anything until you give them your credit card number and CVV to pay for
their rogueware?

Some cleanup or speedup utility professing that removing orphaned
entries in the registry slows down Windows' performance?

On 6/13/2022 7:21 AM, micky wrote:
> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>
> That's not true, right? Broken registry items just sit there doing
> nothing, right, and when Windows needs to look in the registry, it might
> take a millisecond longer to find something because the registry is
> bigger than it might be, right?
>
> Two different opinonons;
> https://appuals.com/how-to-delete-broken-registry-items-on-windows/
> https://computing.which.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/207143549-Should-I-clean-the-Windows-Registry-
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

*******

Sysinternals Process Monitor can log registry reads and writes,
and the time between those might be 100 microseconds or so.

Whatever caching scheme is used, it seems to work pretty well.
Portions of the registry seem to live in system memory, as if
MMIO was being used.

When you do a "Search" on the registry, that seems to be
very slow and takes a minute or two. But to be fair to the
registry file system, we need to count the number of objects
in it. If the number of objects was say, 2 million objects,
then taking two minutes to scan it would not seem so bad
after all. In other words, if the registry has substantially
more entries than your file system, then you would expect
it to be slow to walk it from end to end.

As a scientist, you could start Process Monitor running, then
do a search on the registry, then count the number of
registry accesses until the end is hit. I think there's
some option for storing output in .csv format.

At least one of the Windows OSes, used to pound the registry
with reads. It would read the same registry entries, once
a second, a kind of "polling for changes". If that was
design intent, that's pretty stupid. If using Process Monitor,
that also made it hard to find entries related to your problem,
when there was constant registry traffic filling the log.

Could it be "slow at the microsecond level" ? Dunno.

Some of the behaviors seem at odds with what the
Snake Oil salesman would have you believe. If the
registry broke... the room would become very very quiet.

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>
> That's not true, right?

It is almost certainly a scam.

Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
malware.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Paul wrote:

> micky wrote:
>
>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
>
> Sysinternals Process Monitor can log registry reads and writes,
> and the time between those might be 100 microseconds or so.

Except orphaned registry entries are never accessed, so there is no
wasted time to access them. All they do is bloat the size of the
registry that gets copied into system RAM (where the registry gets
accessed). Deleting orphaned entries from the registry just reduces the
size of it on the disk and the memory copy.

No definition from micky on what "broken" means. Could be an orphaned
entry. Could be a misconfigured entry which means when access can cause
some nasty effects. micky chose not to reveal from where he saw the
message (typical of micky), but the "broken" entries should have further
elucidation as to just what "broken" means. Well, if it's not some
rogue web site pretending to do a scan.

On 6/13/2022 11:12 AM, VanguardLH wrote:

>
> No definition from micky on what "broken" means.

The utilities that provide this information, do
not go into details.

And a brand new computer could have
"7381 broken registry entries" on it.

Immediately, I am reaching for my wallet, to buy a cure for this.

The solution feels oily, and it smells like a snake.

I've had a few utilities on the computer, that were quite
proud of themselves, and could tell you exactly how
many imaginary broken things they had detected.

Paul

On 6/13/2022 10:36 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>>
>> That's not true, right?
>
> It is almost certainly a scam.
>
> Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
> on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
> malware.
>

The choices for such utilities, is just endless.

And they make it seem here, that the utilities
actually do something :-)

"28 Best Free Registry Cleaner Programs"
A list of the best freeware registry cleaner and registry repair software

https://www.lifewire.com/free-registry-cleaners-2626176

*******

You can see here, the victim has "296 problems" with their
file associations. Why, that must be the entire set of file
associations. How many more could there be ? :-)

https://www.lifewire.com/thmb/ZOWaviKoU9NZ8EHrc1D6K0KcRiQ=/650x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29:max_bytes%28150000%29:strip_icc%28%29/registry-repair-56a6f9f95f9b58b7d0e5ccff.png

Imagine you had 8000 problems with your file associations.
What size shovel would you need ?

Paul

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
news:MPG.3d10eb567718434d98ff5a@news.individual.net...
>
>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>>
>> That's not true, right?
>
>It is almost certainly a scam.
>
>Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
>on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
>malware.
>
I get that message when I do an Avast "Smart Scan". Might be where Micky got
it also.
Just now, Avast says I have these "Broken registry items"
360 obsolete Registry keys
155 Muicache Keys
12 Shared DLL Keys
8 Open with Keys
1 Applications Path Keys
1 Autorun Keys
--
Buffalo

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:36:43 -0700, Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>>
>> That's not true, right?
>
>It is almost certainly a scam.
>
>Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
>on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
>malware.

It was AVG Free. It was one of several problems it says I have, but
which afaic ruins their credibility. And they want me to pay to solve
this "registry problem" etc.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:24:26 -0600, "Buffalo"
<phoney@physco.invalid.net> wrote:

>"Stan Brown" wrote in message
>news:MPG.3d10eb567718434d98ff5a@news.individual.net...
>>
>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
>>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>>>
>>> That's not true, right?
>>
>>It is almost certainly a scam.
>>
>>Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
>>on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
>>malware.
>>
>I get that message when I do an Avast "Smart Scan". Might be where Micky got
>it also.

Avast bought AVG (or vice versa), so I guess they hire the same writers.

>Just now, Avast says I have these "Broken registry items"
>360 obsolete Registry keys
>155 Muicache Keys
>12 Shared DLL Keys
>8 Open with Keys
>1 Applications Path Keys
>1 Autorun Keys

My best wishes for a total recovery.

BTW, I've got more than you do, ha ha, assuming they really count them.

"micky" wrote in message news:ddbfah5r0c6umkb99v8pkj2fp8mhoeci6v@4ax.com...
>
>In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:36:43 -0700, Stan
>Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
>>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>>>
>>> That's not true, right?
>>
>>It is almost certainly a scam.
>>
>>Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
>>on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
>>malware.
>
>It was AVG Free. It was one of several problems it says I have, but
>which afaic ruins their credibility. And they want me to pay to solve
>this "registry problem" etc.

Avast lets you do a 'trial' subscription if you give them a charge card
account. Course, if you don't cancel before the allotted time period ends.
it automatically charges you for at least 1 yr, I believe.

--
Buffalo

On 6/13/22 07:24, Paul wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

I hate when I find these things on customer's machines.

I do not even like CC Cleaner.

Paul wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> No definition from micky on what "broken" means.
>
> The utilities that provide this information, do
> not go into details.
>
> And a brand new computer could have
> "7381 broken registry entries" on it.
>
> Immediately, I am reaching for my wallet, to buy a cure for this.
>
> The solution feels oily, and it smells like a snake.
>
> I've had a few utilities on the computer, that were quite
> proud of themselves, and could tell you exactly how
> many imaginary broken things they had detected.

Since micky never divulges important information, even legit registry
cleaners are included in the "the utilities that provide this
information". We end up mixing legit cleaners with rogueware.

CCleaner's registry scan has a "Problem" column which denotes the reason
a registry entry is suspect, like:

Installer reference issue
Unused file extension
Invalid default icon
ActiveX/COM issue
Application Paths issue
Missing MUI issue
Invalid firewall rule

I forgot the category description for orphaned entries. However, some
of those may be for reference by software other than what the registry
entry would lead you to believe. Lots of software has registry presets
to handle or cooperate with other software even if that other software
is not yet installed.

No, there is not detailed descriptions of each problem category. You're
given a clue in the form of a problem category, and the data involved.
If you're delving into the registry, and using registry cleaner tools,
then you are expected to have the experience to understand how the
registry works, interdependencies of entries, and just what the hell is
in there. Giving you regedit.exe doesn't magically divine that
expertise upon the user, anymore than giving someone a toolbox qualifies
them to rebuild your car's engine or giving them a scapel qualifies them
a surgeon.

Each suspect entry in CCleaner's registry scan provides a link to the
registry entry, so YOU can go look at it, and analyze it yourself for
YOU to decide if the registry entry should be touched or not. I've
found programs that pre-installed registry entries to cooperate with
Avast or AVG despite neither of those anti-virus programs are installed.
They aren't entries for Avast or AVG, but entries for another program to
help it coordinate with the other programs if needed.

A registry cleaner should only be used by someone who can do the manual
inspection and cleanup of the registry themself. The cleanup tool only
provides a faster means of discovering what to look at. The expertise
in what to do whether by manually editing the registry or using a tool
remains your responsibility. The cleaner tool is just a search. You
decide which hits need work. The tool does not absolve you of your
responsibility to know what the tool proposes to do.

Rogueware, by its nature, won't give details, or it gives fake details.
They're trying to separate your money from you. They're not trying to
sell you a viable solution. They're willing to sell you a Mona Lisa.
Not *the* Mona Lisa, but just a print. Sorry, but I really don't feel
sorrow or sympathy for boobs that get scammed by web popups claiming
their computers are infected, or calls from Microsoft support saying
their computer is infected, or buying "authentic" sports paraphernalia
in some dark back alley. There will always be uber boobs (and one
reason why I filter out posts submitted through Google Groups).

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:08:24 -0600, "Buffalo"
<phoney@physco.invalid.net> wrote:

>"micky" wrote in message news:ddbfah5r0c6umkb99v8pkj2fp8mhoeci6v@4ax.com...
>>
>>In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:36:43 -0700, Stan
>>Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:21:38 -0400, micky wrote:
>>>> Your computer is being slowed by 893 broken registry items.
>>>>
>>>> That's not true, right?
>>>
>>>It is almost certainly a scam.
>>>
>>>Was this a message on a website, or did it just pop up spontaneously
>>>on your computer? If the latter, you probably already have some
>>>malware.
>>
>>It was AVG Free. It was one of several problems it says I have, but
>>which afaic ruins their credibility. And they want me to pay to solve
>>this "registry problem" etc.
>
>Avast lets you do a 'trial' subscription if you give them a charge card
>account. Course, if you don't cancel before the allotted time period ends.
>it automatically charges you for at least 1 yr, I believe.

I've lost money on those, and I'm afraid it would happen again. A
couple months ago, I didn't consciously do it and I'm not at all sure I
did do it, but Tune-in said my trial month had started, and then I
didn't stop it and a month later they billed me for a full month. I
thought they coudln't do that because I didn't give them a credit card
but they used the one I gave years ago, to android or something. I
canceled it right after they billed me, but that doesn't get the money
back**.

And I did a trial for a VPN that ddnt' work for me, and I neglected to
stop it and after a month I paid I think for a whole year. ?? Darn. I
tried one VPN 3 years ago and 2 more this year that did not work for me,
but then I tried ExpressVPN and it worked fine. One charge for the PC
and the phone. Enabled me to use USA webpages when I abroad. But I'm
back now and I have to cancel before they charge for another month.

**I'll give Amazon Prime credit. One time after a trial month, I forgot
to cancel that and was 5 or more days into the next month. I expected to
have to pay for that month, but Amazon said since I hadn't bought
anything during that time, they refunded that monthly charge.

Tune-in Paid has an advantage that the endless ads for WGU*** etc are
not played, but what they do when the radio or tv station is giving ads
is to go back to earlier in the day and play something I had already
heard if I were listening then. I don't know what else they could do,
but it's distracting to go back and forth every ten minutes from live to
reruns. BUT WORSE YET IS THAT THE VOLUME IS NOT THE SAME. I have to
turn it down or turn it up every 10 minutes. Not good when I'm sitting
at a desk but in the rented Citroen, every time I adjust the volume I
have to take one hand off the wheel and the map dims for 3 or 4 seconds
so I have to plan not to adjust the volume when the map might be
important, especially roundabouts, even though I can't plan when the
volume will be changed by them.

***Any school that advertises as much as WGU, maybe 10 times an hour,
couldn't be very good, acc. to my rules of evaluation.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:46:57 -0400, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/13/2022 11:12 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>>
>> No definition from micky on what "broken" means.
>
>The utilities that provide this information, do
>not go into details.
>
>And a brand new computer could have
>"7381 broken registry entries" on it.
>
>Immediately, I am reaching for my wallet, to buy a cure for this.
>
>The solution feels oily, and it smells like a snake.

LOL
>
>I've had a few utilities on the computer, that were quite
>proud of themselves, and could tell you exactly how
>many imaginary broken things they had detected.
>
> Paul

Today AVG came up with another inducement to sign up for the paid
version. And the same thing appeared on my desktop and laptop when I
started them.

From the desktop:
"29 sensitive items are prime targets for attack.
Advanced threats could possibly hold these files hostage, make unwanted
changes to them, or steal your private date from them without your
knowing."

Yes, I know about ransomware, but what I find interesting is the list of
files. It's 29 seemingly random pdf files. I can't tell what if
anything they have in common. 3 of them are in temp directories. Am I
likely to care about those? I have at least 160 pdf files in my
downloads file and more in my email attachment file. How did they pick
29 of them? I think it's just to alarm me.

And it says I'm vulnerable to fake websites because of DNS hijacking.

There was a list of ways to protect your phone, but it closed when I
changed focus to another program and then went back again.

micky wrote:

> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:46:57 -0400, Paul
> <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 6/13/2022 11:12 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No definition from micky on what "broken" means.
>>
>>The utilities that provide this information, do
>>not go into details.
>>
>>And a brand new computer could have
>>"7381 broken registry entries" on it.
>>
>>Immediately, I am reaching for my wallet, to buy a cure for this.
>>
>>The solution feels oily, and it smells like a snake.
>
> LOL
>>
>>I've had a few utilities on the computer, that were quite
>>proud of themselves, and could tell you exactly how
>>many imaginary broken things they had detected.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Today AVG came up with another inducement to sign up for the paid
> version. And the same thing appeared on my desktop and laptop when I
> started them.
>
> From the desktop:
> "29 sensitive items are prime targets for attack.
> Advanced threats could possibly hold these files hostage, make unwanted
> changes to them, or steal your private date from them without your
> knowing."
>
> Yes, I know about ransomware, but what I find interesting is the list of
> files. It's 29 seemingly random pdf files. I can't tell what if
> anything they have in common. 3 of them are in temp directories. Am I
> likely to care about those? I have at least 160 pdf files in my
> downloads file and more in my email attachment file. How did they pick
> 29 of them? I think it's just to alarm me.
>
> And it says I'm vulnerable to fake websites because of DNS hijacking.
>
> There was a list of ways to protect your phone, but it closed when I
> changed focus to another program and then went back again.

PDFs can contain scripts. Plus they can define an action (run a
program) when they are opened. Whatever PDF viewer you use should have
options to neuter those "features" of PDFs. As with the "broken"
registry items AVG <something> found, doesn't AVG give details on why it
thinks the PDFs are suspect?

In my PDF viewer (PDF-Xchange Editor), I have it configured for
Javascript is disabled, and to prevent launch actions.

Are you using AVG anti-virus program, or AVG Tuneup (registry repair and
cleaner tool)? AVG is a company name, not a product name. AVG has
several products.

Did you check the DNS settings for your connectoids? For example, run
C:\Windows\System32\ncpa.cpl, double-click your connectoid (the one
you're using for Internet access), select Properties, double-click on
IPv4. You can see some of the DNS config in that dialog. For most
users, they get their IP address automatically from the upstream DHCP
server. If it is configured for manual DNS selection, click Advanced,
and look under the DNS tab to see what servers you are configured to
use. Do the same for the IPv6 setup.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:20:32 -0400, micky wrote:
> Today AVG came up with another inducement to sign up for the paid
> version. And the same thing appeared on my desktop and laptop when I
> started them.
>
> From the desktop:
> "29 sensitive items are prime targets for attack.
> Advanced threats could possibly hold these files hostage, make unwanted
> changes to them, or steal your private date from them without your
> knowing."

What I'm wondering is why you haven't junked that program. Surely
it's obvious by now that it's sketchy at best?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 6/17/2022 10:02 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:20:32 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Today AVG came up with another inducement to sign up for the paid
>> version. And the same thing appeared on my desktop and laptop when I
>> started them.
>>
>> From the desktop:
>> "29 sensitive items are prime targets for attack.
>> Advanced threats could possibly hold these files hostage, make unwanted
>> changes to them, or steal your private date from them without your
>> knowing."
>
> What I'm wondering is why you haven't junked that program. Surely
> it's obvious by now that it's sketchy at best?
>
Like most people, he keeps it for the amusement value it brings.

What I wonder, is how much longer the AV industry can
continue this pretense -- that the AV industry is
financially healthy.

Paul

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:02:47 -0700, Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:20:32 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Today AVG came up with another inducement to sign up for the paid
>> version. And the same thing appeared on my desktop and laptop when I
>> started them.
>>
>> From the desktop:
>> "29 sensitive items are prime targets for attack.
>> Advanced threats could possibly hold these files hostage, make unwanted
>> changes to them, or steal your private date from them without your
>> knowing."
>
>What I'm wondering is why you haven't junked that program. Surely
>it's obvious by now that it's sketchy at best?

Lethargy, don't know which one is better, AVG is free and don't want to
pay for another one ,and we go back 10 or 20 years. I don't want the
AVG people to think I'm not a reliable friend.

micky wrote:

> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> Today AVG came up with another inducement to sign up for the paid
>>> version. And the same thing appeared on my desktop and laptop when I
>>> started them.
>>>
>>> From the desktop:
>>> "29 sensitive items are prime targets for attack.
>>> Advanced threats could possibly hold these files hostage, make unwanted
>>> changes to them, or steal your private date from them without your
>>> knowing."
>>
>> What I'm wondering is why you haven't junked that program. Surely
>> it's obvious by now that it's sketchy at best?
>
> Lethargy, don't know which one is better, AVG is free and don't want
> to pay for another one ,and we go back 10 or 20 years. I don't want
> the AVG people to think I'm not a reliable friend.

I've several AVs settling on Avast for several years. AVG was acquired
by Avast, so AVG soon thereafter Avast added their ad platform to AVG.
When Avast decides to puke out another ad campaign, their ad-able
products can popup ads on your screen. Avast then acquired Piriform,
and guess what happened to CCleaner, too? With CCleaner, you could
define 3 firewall rules to kill it from connecting to Avast's ad server,
but that meant visiting the CCleaner site to get new versions since the
firewall block also meant the auto-update in CCleaner got killed.

As of Windows 8, Microsoft added an anti-virus component (their client
from their Endpoint enterprise-level antivirus software, and now called
Defender for Endpoint), so Defender got enhanced from just anti-spyware
to also having anti-virus protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Defender
Before Windows 8, Windows Defender only protected users against spyware.
Protection against viruses was subsequently added in Windows 8.

If you look at the AV comparisons, Defender is up there with Avast,
Avira, Bitdefender, and other top contenders. It was also found to do
better as disinfection than many other top contenders. Plus, Defender
had far less false positives (down to zero) wasting your time to
investigate. So, I dumped Avast and just stuck with Defender. Defender
also runs at kernel level instead of having to stack drivers that load
after the OS loads.

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-may-2022/

You can see what performance hit the various AVs have, at:

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2022/

Defender is a bit worse than some other AVs; however, I don't care
installers may run a wee bit slower (after extracting their files) since
installations aren't the speediest process, anyway, and it's a one-time
hit on an install.

You can see the offline vs online malware detection rate at:

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-march-2022/

Defender is one of several that do poorly when the host is offline,
because that omits the cloud scanning feature. My desktop PC has an
always-on broadcand (cable) Internet connection, so Defender's cloud
scan is always available. Cloud scanning is used to check unknown files
for infection instead of relying on a staid local database of signatures
and heuristics (until whenever is the next update). On my Android
smartphone, I use Panda Intercept X).

You aren't getting better detection with AVG (or Avast) unless your host
is mostly offline, and you somehow manage to get lots of new files on
your host while it is offline (which means not from e-mails, not from
web surfing, or any other Internet-centric app, and instead you getting
files from elsewhere, like with USB drives).

Discard AVG, and just go with MS Defender already included in Windows
10. Uninstalling AVG will still leave file and registry remnants. If
you're the neat freak type, you'll need to manually clean them out, or
use something like Revo's Uninstaller (which will leave some remnants
unless you use agressive mode, but you better under what it proposes to
remove since some might be solely related to AVG).