Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #102058 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-08 08:44 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-03-12 23:19 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-08 08:44 +0000
Re: Mac Malware android <here@there.was> - 2017-03-08 10:20 +0100
Re: Mac Malware Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2017-03-08 10:38 +0100
Re: Mac Malware Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-03-08 09:39 +0000
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-10 16:33 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-08 15:07 +0000
Re: Mac Malware michaelunowho@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 14:34 -0800
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:22 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-09 23:27 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 03:23 -0500
Re: Mac Malware android <here@there.was> - 2017-03-10 09:43 +0100
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 06:16 -0500
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-13 07:26 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-11 11:24 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-03-08 11:17 -0500
Re: Mac Malware dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-03-09 07:43 +1100
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-10 16:39 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-03-10 18:55 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-03-09 14:25 -0500
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:44 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-10 16:45 +0000
Knock-knock (Was: Re: Mac Malware) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-11 11:10 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-11 11:28 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-11 16:32 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-11 11:53 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-10 11:22 -0700
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-10 19:27 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-11 13:41 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-11 20:05 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-11 19:39 -0500
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 16:44 -0400
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-12 16:55 -0400
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:22 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-13 14:42 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:36 -0400
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-15 09:59 -0400
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 06:04 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 14:46 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-16 10:55 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-15 15:45 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 06:09 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 14:48 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-16 10:55 -0400
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-13 11:50 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-12 22:25 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:26 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-13 14:06 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-13 14:45 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:38 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-15 15:47 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-03-15 10:18 -0700
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-15 13:21 -0400
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 06:13 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-17 04:07 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-15 17:25 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 06:11 -0400
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-16 10:55 -0400
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:14 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-18 14:49 +0000
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-13 15:22 +0000
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-13 15:35 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-13 11:50 -0400
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:40 -0400
Re: Mac Malware YK <xxxxx@dialme.com> - 2017-04-03 12:19 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-10 14:14 -0700
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 16:53 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-11 09:04 -0700
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-11 16:26 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-11 17:24 -0700
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-11 12:54 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-03-11 17:01 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-11 17:21 -0700
Re: Mac Malware Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-03-11 23:23 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-12 04:23 -0600
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-10 19:25 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-03-10 14:04 -0700
Re: Mac Malware Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-03-10 23:24 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-03-11 13:35 +1100
Re: Mac Malware Don Bruder <Don@sonic.net> - 2017-03-10 19:07 -0800
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 22:11 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-11 08:14 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-11 11:27 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-03-11 12:13 -0600
Re: Mac Malware Don Bruder <Don@sonic.net> - 2017-03-11 18:16 -0800
Re: Mac Malware befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2017-03-13 09:42 +0100
Re: Mac Malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-11 11:38 -0500
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-11 11:03 +0000
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-11 11:46 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-11 14:17 +0000
Re: Mac Malware "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-12 08:51 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-03-11 17:58 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-03-11 18:10 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-03-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-03-12 11:34 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-03-13 22:46 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-03-16 13:27 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-03-16 19:46 +0000
Re: Mac Malware John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2017-03-11 23:14 -0500
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-11 23:31 -0500
Re: Mac Malware John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2017-03-12 23:18 -0400
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-12 23:20 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-12 14:16 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-14 09:48 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-15 01:21 +1300
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-14 15:19 +0000
Re: Mac Malware gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-03-14 15:01 -0700
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-14 22:13 +0000
Re: Mac Malware gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-03-14 15:35 -0700
Re: Mac Malware gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-03-14 15:45 -0700
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-15 00:16 +0000
Re: Mac Malware gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-03-15 10:55 -0700
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-15 00:14 +0000
Re: Mac Malware gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-03-15 10:54 -0700
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:43 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-12 16:14 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-12 16:34 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-12 20:33 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-12 22:26 +0000
Re: Mac Malware FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 07:31 -0400
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-15 08:31 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-15 09:59 -0400
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-16 08:59 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-16 10:55 -0400
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-16 18:48 -0400
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-21 18:57 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-15 15:00 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-16 08:59 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 14:16 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-16 18:48 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 23:33 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 23:33 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-17 13:56 +1300
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-17 16:01 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-18 10:17 +1300
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-17 21:53 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-18 14:46 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-19 10:48 +1300
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-18 14:23 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-18 11:17 -0400
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-19 16:44 +0000
Re: Mac Malware befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2017-03-20 11:02 +0100
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-17 04:01 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-17 15:30 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-18 14:10 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-18 14:56 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-19 16:43 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-19 16:57 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-17 03:59 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-21 18:57 +0000
Re: Mac Malware nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-21 15:06 -0400
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-23 07:51 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-21 20:42 +0000
Re: Mac Malware dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-23 07:51 +0000
Re: Mac Malware Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-23 05:09 +0000
Re: Mac Malware John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2017-03-12 23:19 -0400
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnocqids.153.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #102483 |
In message <oagg8p$ifg$1@dont-email.me> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-03-16 14:55:38 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: >> In article <oado6c$ubg$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> We don't even have a Wacom tablet in the shop... so it had to be >>>>> installed on the sly. >>>> >>>> That means your real problem is that you are allowing just anyone to >>>> have administrative access to those computers. >>> >>> Yeah, well, if they were MINE, it wouldn't be happening... but I'm not >>> there 24 hours a day. >> >> no need to be there 24 hours a day. > What? How would I know what happens in the 16 hours I'm not there, then? > Fact of the matter is we run 3 shifts... and anything can happen on a > single shift that nobody on the other two shifts will know about. That is simply not how a business that wants to stay in business operates. > Not to mention that the machines need to be left on, and running in > order to make changes on press. That doesn't mean anyone needs admin access. > They can't be secured from other departments because they need to run > the equipment the computers control. Of course they can. > At almost a thousand dollars an hour press time, the machine that burns > our printing plates has to be accessible 24/7. It does not have to be accessible to random people making changes and installing unauthorized software. That is beyond foolish, it is delinquent. If you fuck up a customer's print job because some yahoo installed ransom ware, your company is going to be out of business. -- you cannot code around infinite implementations of OCD -John C Welch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2PyxA.185676$Tb4.80322@fx03.fr7> |
| In reply to | #102257 |
On 13/03/2017 11:26, FPP wrote: > On 2017-03-12 22:25:49 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said: > >> On 2017-03-12, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2017-03-11 20:05:11 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said: >>>> On 2017-03-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I recall trying to remove Norton from a PC. The removal "app" >>>>> didn't do >>>>> it so I received detailed instructions for regedit. Took about 4 >>>>> hours >>>>> going through hundreds of reg keys and pruning. >>>> >>>> Good, old Microsoft. Just can't bring themselves to get rid of the >>>> monstrosity that is the registry. Meanwhile, their customers suffer, >>>> year after year. I'll take Apple's common-sense methods of keeping >>>> track >>>> of application preferences and states over that *any* day. : ) >>>> >>>>> Never again will I even look at a Norton product. >>>> >>>> Lots of Windows stuff is deprecated in my home. : ) >>> >>> I use AppDelete. >> >> We're talking about *Windows* here. There's little need to delete >> preference files after deleting a *Mac* application, since they are >> relatively small and innocuous. > > Yeah... Windows is another animal. I wouldn't even guess what happens > there. > > Re: Macs. It isn't pref files that appeared to be a problem. It was > the Application Support files and the daemons the app installs that add up. > > AppDelete is a quick drag 'n' drop method to get rid of associated > files. No need to hunt them down manually and figure out what goes with > what. I'll try anything once! ;-) (There's a free trial) http://www.reggieashworth.com/buy -- Regards, David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x%yxA.201219$z83.95692@fx26.fr7> |
| In reply to | #102264 |
On 13/03/2017 15:22, David B. wrote: [...] > I'll try anything once! ;-) (There's a free trial) This was a nice result to get! :-) https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qsoft2zny7rlee/AppDelete%20result%21%2013032017.tiff?dl=0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 11:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <130320171150415799%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #102257 |
In article <oa5vfb$r2a$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Lots of Windows stuff is deprecated in my home. : ) > >> > >> I use AppDelete. > > > > We're talking about *Windows* here. There's little need to delete > > preference files after deleting a *Mac* application, since they are > > relatively small and innocuous. > > Yeah... Windows is another animal. I wouldn't even guess what happens there. > > Re: Macs. It isn't pref files that appeared to be a problem. It was > the Application Support files nope. app support files are also inert. > and the daemons the app installs that add > up. possibly. however, apps don't normally install daemons. the few that do have their own uninstaller. > AppDelete is a quick drag 'n' drop method to get rid of associated > files. No need to hunt them down manually and figure out what goes > with what. it also is not guaranteed to work. all appdelete and similar tools do is search for files matching what you dragged onto it. it might find everything related or it might not. it also might find unrelated stuff that matched. if you delete that, you're worse off. anything that installs a driver, kext or launch daemon will have its own uninstaller. use *that*. otherwise, drag to trash is sufficient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 03:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oaar0e$40l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102267 |
On 2017-03-13 15:50:41 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: > In article <oa5vfb$r2a$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Lots of Windows stuff is deprecated in my home. : ) >>>> >>>> I use AppDelete. >>> >>> We're talking about *Windows* here. There's little need to delete >>> preference files after deleting a *Mac* application, since they are >>> relatively small and innocuous. >> >> Yeah... Windows is another animal. I wouldn't even guess what happens there. >> >> Re: Macs. It isn't pref files that appeared to be a problem. It was >> the Application Support files > > nope. app support files are also inert. > >> and the daemons the app installs that add >> up. > > possibly. however, apps don't normally install daemons. the few that do > have their own uninstaller. > >> AppDelete is a quick drag 'n' drop method to get rid of associated >> files. No need to hunt them down manually and figure out what goes >> with what. > > it also is not guaranteed to work. > > all appdelete and similar tools do is search for files matching what > you dragged onto it. it might find everything related or it might not. > it also might find unrelated stuff that matched. if you delete that, > you're worse off. > > anything that installs a driver, kext or launch daemon will have its > own uninstaller. use *that*. otherwise, drag to trash is sufficient. I think it allows you to just quarantine the files it finds, in case you don't know for sure. Smarter way to go if you don't know what you're doing. Either way, it allows you to check out the files without doing anything. -- White House: "Don't call it Trumpcare." 3-8-17 "How bad does something have to be, that Donald Trump doesn't want to put his name on it?" -SNL 3-11-17
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | YK <xxxxx@dialme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 12:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obtsn4$2j6f$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #102257 |
On 3/13/17 7:26 AM, FPP wrote: > On 2017-03-12 22:25:49 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said: > >> On 2017-03-12, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2017-03-11 20:05:11 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said: >>>> On 2017-03-11, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I recall trying to remove Norton from a PC. The removal "app" >>>>> didn't do >>>>> it so I received detailed instructions for regedit. Took about 4 >>>>> hours >>>>> going through hundreds of reg keys and pruning. >>>> >>>> Good, old Microsoft. Just can't bring themselves to get rid of the >>>> monstrosity that is the registry. Meanwhile, their customers suffer, >>>> year after year. I'll take Apple's common-sense methods of keeping >>>> track >>>> of application preferences and states over that *any* day. : ) >>>> >>>>> Never again will I even look at a Norton product. >>>> >>>> Lots of Windows stuff is deprecated in my home. : ) >>> >>> I use AppDelete. >> >> We're talking about *Windows* here. There's little need to delete >> preference files after deleting a *Mac* application, since they are >> relatively small and innocuous. > > Yeah... Windows is another animal. I wouldn't even guess what happens > there. > > Re: Macs. It isn't pref files that appeared to be a problem. It was > the Application Support files and the daemons the app installs that add up. > > AppDelete is a quick drag 'n' drop method to get rid of associated > files. No need to hunt them down manually and figure out what goes with > what. I prefer App Cleaner (not Appcleaner). For one things, you can use it to clean up remains of other items from applications you may have dragged to the trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o9v505$s6u$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #102160 |
On 3/10/17 11:45 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <o9uqtb$jg7$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>>> If one doesn't have such a third-party program, how would anyone KNOW
>>> they actually /had/ malware on their Apple machine, let alone have any
>>> notion of how to remove same?!!!
>>
>> Herein is the crux of your question. If you don't look, how do you
>> know? And the corollary, how good is the tool you use to look with? :-)
>>
>> nospam is correct. Using a third-party program may not find any issues.
>> But *not* using one or more *guarantees* you will not find anything.
>
> it also means that you are *more* vulnerable because anti-malware
> utilities *must* hook into the lowest levels of the system (where
> malware will attack) and if they don't get it exactly right, you're
> worse off.
>
> this is not theoretical either. it actually happens, and sadly, rather
> frequently.
>
> for instance, someone who installed eset antivirus 6 *added* a vector
> of attack:
>
> <http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Feb/68>
> Vulnerable versions of ESET Endpoint Antivirus 6 are statically
> linked with an outdated XML parsing library and do not perform
> proper server authentication, allowing for remote unauthenticated
> attackers to perform arbitrary code execution as root on vulnerable
> clients.
Do the "home" versions of Eset have the same issue? They don't have to
have the same issues, or even the same features. I don't think anyone
here would say the issues of the Chevy Vega or Ford Pinto were
representative of all the other vehicles. Why would we make a similar
assumption for different products from the same company?
> going back a few years, there was a mac antivirus utility (i think
> norton) which decided that the virtual memory swap files were malware
> and quarantined them. needless to say, that did not end well.
That's not good.
>> I will stipulate to JR's statement about Apple professionals not using
>> AV scanners. But, professionals will not be the cause of problems in
>> the normal course of the day. It will be the home/casual user that will
>> do the wrong thing and potentially cause someone problems.
>
> home/casual users aren't going to be downloading and installing sketchy
> apps, overriding system defaults to do so, which means they're actually
> *less* at risk than a 'pro user' who knows how (or thinks he does).
LOL Certainly, not what I've seen. I have a brother-in-law that falls
for them all, even though his son and I have talked about this till
we're blue in the face! And, he still does it.
>> In a previous malware thread, one poster said that any Windows malware
>> that he/she accidentally passes along is not his problem, it's the next
>> person's problem. If that's someone I've been calling a friend, and
>> this is the attitude towards me, then do I want that person as a friend?
>
> if you're going to dissolve a friendship over something as ridiculous
> as that, then they weren't really a friend to begin with.
I was referring more to an attitude, not a specific instance. What else
will that friend not tell you about that may be important?
> expecting other people to run antivirus apps on their systems to
> protect you is utterly ridiculous. maybe you should insist that they
> take antibiotics and megadoses of vitamins before visiting you, while
> you're at it.
If I lived in a plastic bubble, maybe I would. <G>
I never said anything about insisting on something. I'm talking about
what kind of person *you* are. (Generic use of the word "you".)
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 16:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <100320171653216700%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #102166 |
In article <o9v505$s6u$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote: > > it also means that you are *more* vulnerable because anti-malware > > utilities *must* hook into the lowest levels of the system (where > > malware will attack) and if they don't get it exactly right, you're > > worse off. > > > > this is not theoretical either. it actually happens, and sadly, rather > > frequently. > > > > for instance, someone who installed eset antivirus 6 *added* a vector > > of attack: > > > > <http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Feb/68> > > Vulnerable versions of ESET Endpoint Antivirus 6 are statically > > linked with an outdated XML parsing library and do not perform > > proper server authentication, allowing for remote unauthenticated > > attackers to perform arbitrary code execution as root on vulnerable > > clients. > > Do the "home" versions of Eset have the same issue? They don't have to > have the same issues, or even the same features. I don't think anyone > here would say the issues of the Chevy Vega or Ford Pinto were > representative of all the other vehicles. Why would we make a similar > assumption for different products from the same company? the point is that anti-malware tools *must* go deep into the os to detect malware, and any bugs can (and does) make things worse. nothing is bug-free, so you're actually trusting a third party company to get it right more so than you are apple or microsoft on their very own systems. that's not an acceptable risk. although an older article, it still holds true: <https://web.archive.org/web/20080306142823/http://www.macfixit.com/arti cle.php?story=20060511065134478> The bottom line is that Mac OS X virus software has, collectively, precipitated more security flaws, slow-downs, accidental file deletions and overall system issues than perhaps any other grouping of software. and much of the time, it doesn't even work: <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12390650> Almost one third of internet users in the European Union caught a PC virus despite the majority having security software installed, statistics show. > > going back a few years, there was a mac antivirus utility (i think > > norton) which decided that the virtual memory swap files were malware > > and quarantined them. needless to say, that did not end well. > > That's not good. no, it's not, although in retrospect, it's a bit amusing that it could even happen. and it's not just macs either: <https://www.cnet.com/news/flawed-symantec-update-cripples-chinese-pcs/> A Symantec antivirus signature update mistakenly quarantined two critical system files in the Simplified Chinese version of Windows XP last week, crippling PCs throughout China. > >> I will stipulate to JR's statement about Apple professionals not using > >> AV scanners. But, professionals will not be the cause of problems in > >> the normal course of the day. It will be the home/casual user that will > >> do the wrong thing and potentially cause someone problems. > > > > home/casual users aren't going to be downloading and installing sketchy > > apps, overriding system defaults to do so, which means they're actually > > *less* at risk than a 'pro user' who knows how (or thinks he does). > > LOL Certainly, not what I've seen. I have a brother-in-law that falls > for them all, even though his son and I have talked about this till > we're blue in the face! And, he still does it. the weakest link is the *user*, not the computer. if you can trick the user into installing something, game over. people have been tricked into falling for scams since forever, particularly phone solicitors. no computer involved at all. sometimes, as in your situation, they don't need to be tricked. they do stupid things on their own, and no anti-malware utility is going to fix that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oa176h$edi$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #102170 |
On 3/10/17 2:53 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <o9v505$s6u$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>>> it also means that you are *more* vulnerable because anti-malware
>>> utilities *must* hook into the lowest levels of the system (where
>>> malware will attack) and if they don't get it exactly right, you're
>>> worse off.
>>>
>>> this is not theoretical either. it actually happens, and sadly, rather
>>> frequently.
>>>
>>> for instance, someone who installed eset antivirus 6 *added* a vector
>>> of attack:
>>>
>>> <http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Feb/68>
>>> Vulnerable versions of ESET Endpoint Antivirus 6 are statically
>>> linked with an outdated XML parsing library and do not perform
>>> proper server authentication, allowing for remote unauthenticated
>>> attackers to perform arbitrary code execution as root on vulnerable
>>> clients.
>>
>> Do the "home" versions of Eset have the same issue? They don't have to
>> have the same issues, or even the same features. I don't think anyone
>> here would say the issues of the Chevy Vega or Ford Pinto were
>> representative of all the other vehicles. Why would we make a similar
>> assumption for different products from the same company?
>
> the point is that anti-malware tools *must* go deep into the os to
> detect malware, and any bugs can (and does) make things worse.
How can it not go deep? It wouldn't be doing a good job if it didn't.
But your bug statement would apply to any program. <G>
> nothing is bug-free, so you're actually trusting a third party company
> to get it right more so than you are apple or microsoft on their very
> own systems. that's not an acceptable risk.
Maybe, maybe not. I've no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that the
number of people looking for vulnerabilities that are *not* Apple and
Microsoft employees far outnumber the employees of Apple and MS.
Where do you think the odds will say that the problems will be found?
> although an older article, it still holds true:
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20080306142823/http://www.macfixit.com/arti
> cle.php?story=20060511065134478>
> The bottom line is that Mac OS X virus software has, collectively,
> precipitated more security flaws, slow-downs, accidental file
> deletions and overall system issues than perhaps any other grouping
> of software.
>
> and much of the time, it doesn't even work:
> <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12390650>
> Almost one third of internet users in the European Union caught a PC
> virus despite the majority having security software installed,
> statistics show.
IMO, in the world of computer aging, the articles are too old to be
trusted for relevance today. Rather like reading a 20 tear old
newspaper, and thinking the articles are current.
But they are interesting if you want to gain an historical viewpoint.
>>> going back a few years, there was a mac antivirus utility (i think
>>> norton) which decided that the virtual memory swap files were malware
>>> and quarantined them. needless to say, that did not end well.
>>
>> That's not good.
>
> no, it's not, although in retrospect, it's a bit amusing that it could
> even happen.
>
> and it's not just macs either:
> <https://www.cnet.com/news/flawed-symantec-update-cripples-chinese-pcs/>
> A Symantec antivirus signature update mistakenly quarantined two
> critical system files in the Simplified Chinese version of Windows XP
> last week, crippling PCs throughout China.
I've probably posted that I work part time at a local PC repair shop,
although I don't do any of the repairs. We don't recommend either
Symantec or McAfee.
>>>> I will stipulate to JR's statement about Apple professionals not using
>>>> AV scanners. But, professionals will not be the cause of problems in
>>>> the normal course of the day. It will be the home/casual user that will
>>>> do the wrong thing and potentially cause someone problems.
>>>
>>> home/casual users aren't going to be downloading and installing sketchy
>>> apps, overriding system defaults to do so, which means they're actually
>>> *less* at risk than a 'pro user' who knows how (or thinks he does).
>>
>> LOL Certainly, not what I've seen. I have a brother-in-law that falls
>> for them all, even though his son and I have talked about this till
>> we're blue in the face! And, he still does it.
>
> the weakest link is the *user*, not the computer. if you can trick the
> user into installing something, game over. people have been tricked
> into falling for scams since forever, particularly phone solicitors. no
> computer involved at all.
The user is always the weakest link. LOL We just have to accept it and
get on with life.
> sometimes, as in your situation, they don't need to be tricked. they do
> stupid things on their own, and no anti-malware utility is going to fix
> that.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eiimpoFs7hpU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #102195 |
On 2017-03-11, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote: > On 3/10/17 2:53 PM, nospam wrote: > >> although an older article, it still holds true: >> <https://web.archive.org/web/20080306142823/http://www.macfixit.com/arti >> cle.php?story=20060511065134478> >> The bottom line is that Mac OS X virus software has, collectively, >> precipitated more security flaws, slow-downs, accidental file >> deletions and overall system issues than perhaps any other grouping >> of software. >> >> and much of the time, it doesn't even work: >> <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12390650> >> Almost one third of internet users in the European Union caught a PC >> virus despite the majority having security software installed, >> statistics show. > > IMO, in the world of computer aging, the articles are too old to be > trusted for relevance today. No, 2011 isn't too old to be relevant. > Rather like reading a 20 tear old newspaper, and thinking the articles are current. Nope, not at all. > But they are interesting if you want to gain an historical viewpoint. The above referenced articles show just how crappy anti-virus utilities have been historically, and yet you seem to be advocating trust where none is warranted. Fool me once... ; ) >> and it's not just macs either: >> <https://www.cnet.com/news/flawed-symantec-update-cripples-chinese-pcs/> >> A Symantec antivirus signature update mistakenly quarantined two >> critical system files in the Simplified Chinese version of Windows XP >> last week, crippling PCs throughout China. > > I've probably posted that I work part time at a local PC repair shop, > although I don't do any of the repairs. We don't recommend either > Symantec or McAfee. Who said shoddy development, buggy behavior, and adding their own security holes are things that apply only to Symantec and McAfee? Tell me you're not that naive. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oa24gk$8p4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #102197 |
On 3/11/17 9:26 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2017-03-11, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 3/10/17 2:53 PM, nospam wrote:
<snip>
> The above referenced articles show just how crappy anti-virus utilities
> have been historically, and yet you seem to be advocating trust where
> none is warranted. Fool me once... ; )
Exactly. I've been fooled by articles newer than that, with wrong,
erroneous, and out of date information. So I don't trust old articles,
and articles with no dates, to be accurate.
YMMV
<snip>
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <110320171254162212%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #102195 |
In article <oa176h$edi$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote: > > the point is that anti-malware tools *must* go deep into the os to > > detect malware, and any bugs can (and does) make things worse. > > How can it not go deep? It wouldn't be doing a good job if it didn't. > > But your bug statement would apply to any program. <G> nope. normal apps don't need to hook into the kernel or watch for file access to see if it's 'suspicious'. > > nothing is bug-free, so you're actually trusting a third party company > > to get it right more so than you are apple or microsoft on their very > > own systems. that's not an acceptable risk. > > Maybe, maybe not. I've no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that the > number of people looking for vulnerabilities that are *not* Apple and > Microsoft employees far outnumber the employees of Apple and MS. > > Where do you think the odds will say that the problems will be found? you're missing the point. malware prevention is best done by the entity who created the system itself, which is microsoft or apple or google. third party anti-malware companies do not have the luxury of knowing every little detail about the system they're trying to protect. while nothing is perfect, the latter makes more mistakes than the former. > > although an older article, it still holds true: > > <https://web.archive.org/web/20080306142823/http://www.macfixit.com/arti > > cle.php?story=20060511065134478> > > The bottom line is that Mac OS X virus software has, collectively, > > precipitated more security flaws, slow-downs, accidental file > > deletions and overall system issues than perhaps any other grouping > > of software. > > > > and much of the time, it doesn't even work: > > <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12390650> > > Almost one third of internet users in the European Union caught a PC > > virus despite the majority having security software installed, > > statistics show. > > IMO, in the world of computer aging, the articles are too old to be > trusted for relevance today. Rather like reading a 20 tear old > newspaper, and thinking the articles are current. > > But they are interesting if you want to gain an historical viewpoint. nothing has changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 17:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <110320171701109349%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #102195 |
Ken Springer: > Maybe, maybe not. I've no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that the > number of people looking for vulnerabilities that are *not* Apple and > Microsoft employees far outnumber the employees of Apple and MS. I don't have a number for those looking for vulnerabilities, but if Google serves me well Apple and MS together have nearly 190,000 employees, not counting 30,000 employees in Apple's retail stores. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 17:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oa24b2$abd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #102208 |
On 3/11/17 3:01 PM, Davoud wrote:
> Ken Springer:
>> Maybe, maybe not. I've no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that the
>> number of people looking for vulnerabilities that are *not* Apple and
>> Microsoft employees far outnumber the employees of Apple and MS.
>
> I don't have a number for those looking for vulnerabilities, but if
> Google serves me well Apple and MS together have nearly 190,000
> employees, not counting 30,000 employees in Apple's retail stores.
Read a tad closer, Davoud. <G> I said the number of employees looking
for vulnerabilities, not the number of employees total.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 23:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <110320172323388851%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #102209 |
Ken Springer: > >> Maybe, maybe not. I've no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that the > >> number of people looking for vulnerabilities that are *not* Apple and > >> Microsoft employees far outnumber the employees of Apple and MS. Davoud: > > I don't have a number for those looking for vulnerabilities, but if > > Google serves me well Apple and MS together have nearly 190,000 > > employees, not counting 30,000 employees in Apple's retail stores. Ken Springer: > Read a tad closer, Davoud. <G> I said the number of employees looking > for vulnerabilities, not the number of employees total. Uh, OK. I see now that you meant that. But did you *say* that? -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 04:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <oa37ja$63u$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #102216 |
On 3/11/17 9:23 PM, Davoud wrote:
> Ken Springer:
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I've no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that the
>>>> number of people looking for vulnerabilities that are *not* Apple and
>>>> Microsoft employees far outnumber the employees of Apple and MS.
>
> Davoud:
>>> I don't have a number for those looking for vulnerabilities, but if
>>> Google serves me well Apple and MS together have nearly 190,000
>>> employees, not counting 30,000 employees in Apple's retail stores.
>
> Ken Springer:
>> Read a tad closer, Davoud. <G> I said the number of employees looking
>> for vulnerabilities, not the number of employees total.
>
> Uh, OK. I see now that you meant that. But did you *say* that?
I did, that's why I asked you to reread it. :-)
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eigcu4Fe5raU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #102159 |
On 2017-03-10, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote: > > Herein is the crux of your question. If you don't look, how do you > know? And the corollary, how good is the tool you use to look with? > :-) But if your computer isn't malfunctioning in some manner, there's no reason to look to begin with. And if it *is* malfunctioning, it's far better to do a one-time scan with something like MalwareBytes than to install just about any Mac anti-virus scanner. Mac anti-virus apps that constantly scan your computer are notoriously buggy, often make you *more* insecure by opening their own security holes, and often negatively impact the performance of your computer. They won't protect you from zero-day exploits, and the majority of the time if they do trigger on something, it's malware that won't run on Macs anyway. The negatives far outweigh the minor (if any) enhancement to security, IMHO. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o9v4dc$ti6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #102161 |
On 3/10/17 12:25 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2017-03-10, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Herein is the crux of your question. If you don't look, how do you
>> know? And the corollary, how good is the tool you use to look with?
>> :-)
>
> But if your computer isn't malfunctioning in some manner, there's no
> reason to look to begin with.
At this point, we have to consider the competency and experience of the
user to recognize the computer is malfunctioning. I rarely if ever
encounter a Mac user. :-( But I've come across a lot of Windows
computers that aren't right, and the user/owner didn't have a clue.
> And if it *is* malfunctioning, it's far
> better to do a one-time scan with something like MalwareBytes than to
> install just about any Mac anti-virus scanner. Mac anti-virus apps that
> constantly scan your computer are notoriously buggy,
Just asking here, but is the buggy reputation based on current scanners,
or scanners of the past? I'm thinking about the situation where the
first versions of a product are indeed bad, but the latter versions were
fine. But the reputation garnered by the early versions of the product
persists as the correct situation, but doesn't represent the current
situation.
> often make you
> *more* insecure by opening their own security holes,
That's possible with any complex piece of software, regardless of
source. If Apple and MS were perfect, there would be no security holes.
<G>
> and often
> negatively impact the performance of your computer.
Well, duh. LOL As long as you are multitasking X number of programs,
and the things that are being done in the background, performance has to
go down. It's up to the user to decide of the slow down is worth it to
him/her.
Performance of this iMac has always been a disappointment to me, from
the day I took it out of the box 8 years ago. But I'm not inclined to
abandon it, although some day I'll be forced to because the world moves on.
> They won't protect
> you from zero-day exploits, and the majority of the time if they do
> trigger on something, it's malware that won't run on Macs anyway. The
> negatives far outweigh the minor (if any) enhancement to security, IMHO.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 23:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9vck7$lcd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #102159 |
For your reference, records indicate that Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote: > Herein is the crux of your question. If you don't look, how do you > know? And the corollary, how good is the tool you use to look with? :-) > > nospam is correct. Using a third-party program may not find any issues. > But *not* using one or more *guarantees* you will not find anything. That’s faulty “lottery” reasoning. Yes, you have to “play to win”, but when the odds are so vanishingly small, no reasonably intelligent person would play expecting that outcome. That’s essentially the case for Mac malware. It does exist, but there just isn’t enough of it out in the wild that a reasonably intelligent user is likely to be hit by it, ever. You just do the regular kinds of things you’d normally do to protect yourself from data loss. > In a previous malware thread, one poster said that any Windows malware > that he/she accidentally passes along is not his problem, it's the next > person's problem. If that's someone I've been calling a friend, and > this is the attitude towards me, then do I want that person as a friend? Fake scenario remains fake. There are approximately 0 Windows users in the world that have a Mac “friend” who “passes along” files as their *sole* vector of malware. Make an argument closer to reality of you want to be taken seriously. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 13:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-ED1F30.13355311032017@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com> |
| In reply to | #102175 |
In article <o9vck7$lcd$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > > In a previous malware thread, one poster said that any Windows malware > > that he/she accidentally passes along is not his problem, it's the next > > person's problem. If that's someone I've been calling a friend, and > > this is the attitude towards me, then do I want that person as a friend? > > Fake scenario remains fake. There are approximately 0 Windows users in > the world that have a Mac “friend” who “passes along” files as their > *sole* vector of malware. Make an argument closer to reality of you > want to be taken seriously. Quite a good point Doc! -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web