Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #106786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-13 14:27 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-05-19 09:46 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 207 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-13 14:27 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-13 21:08 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-13 17:40 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-13 22:21 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 11:07 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-13 18:52 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-05-13 22:20 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-13 19:38 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-14 09:11 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 15:42 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 05:23 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 11:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 19:17 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 12:40 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 19:51 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 13:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:52 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:43 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:03 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:04 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:11 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:30 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:55 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:25 -0500
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-15 14:26 +0100
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 09:38 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-16 09:06 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:11 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 21:25 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-15 14:32 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:01 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-16 09:35 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:40 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:55 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:08 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 09:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 14:38 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-16 21:05 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 20:28 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-17 05:48 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 23:53 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-17 06:10 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 00:12 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-17 06:48 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 00:09 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 10:24 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 08:57 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:41 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:47 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:50 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 00:09 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 21:05 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 18:09 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-17 13:26 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 21:35 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 02:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 18:59 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-16 21:07 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 20:28 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 18:20 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:41 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 02:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 19:14 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 22:46 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 19:51 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 23:41 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:41 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:50 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 10:31 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 16:43 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 15:41 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 18:49 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 15:56 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 00:43 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 21:51 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 01:05 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 22:14 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 01:46 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 22:55 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-18 21:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-18 16:23 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-19 00:16 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 14:55 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 18:33 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 15:39 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 19:08 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:28 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 19:32 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 20:05 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 15:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-20 09:33 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 16:43 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 16:45 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 17:08 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-22 15:21 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-22 06:31 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-22 15:23 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 09:32 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 10:50 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 21:15 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 16:06 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-18 21:47 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-19 00:13 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 01:20 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:05 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 09:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-16 14:32 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:40 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 18:06 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 15:30 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 23:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:38 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 02:00 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 19:16 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-15 18:50 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:09 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-15 20:12 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:16 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:17 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 19:42 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:36 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:32 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:33 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:14 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:57 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 17:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:16 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:39 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 03:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-15 11:39 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 17:01 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-14 21:16 +0100
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 13:25 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:53 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:10 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:16 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:01 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 17:37 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 01:00 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 03:20 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 05:23 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 15:11 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:52 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 14:05 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 17:27 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:18 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:02 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 19:26 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:51 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-15 11:25 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 16:48 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-15 19:26 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-16 04:52 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 14:30 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-16 04:28 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-16 05:02 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 14:32 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:39 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-17 22:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 11:55 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-17 22:13 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-16 09:09 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:35 -0600
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-15 10:07 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-14 17:04 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:20 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:46 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 23:47 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-05-14 11:40 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-05-14 14:41 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-05-15 13:13 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-18 14:21 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-05-18 09:18 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 09:46 +1200
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 19:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140520171942232894%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #106845 |
In article <ofapdl$1l81$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > You can't argue that anti-malware software is "unwise" by saying it > might have bugs, because that problem exists ALL THE TIME FOR ALL SOFTWARE. the difference is that 'all software' doesn't hook into the kernel and intercept all sorts of things and attempt to 'guess' at suspicious activity. a bug in an app only affects that one app. worst case, that app crashes and maybe you lose a few minutes of work. other apps are *unaffected*. a bug in something that hooks into the kernel can fuck you over. worst case, you need to reinstall everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens9ksFo412U12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106849 |
On 2017-05-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ofapdl$1l81$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker ><alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> You can't argue that anti-malware software is "unwise" by saying it >> might have bugs, because that problem exists ALL THE TIME FOR ALL SOFTWARE. > > the difference is that 'all software' doesn't hook into the kernel and > intercept all sorts of things and attempt to 'guess' at suspicious > activity. Exactly. > a bug in an app only affects that one app. worst case, that app crashes > and maybe you lose a few minutes of work. other apps are *unaffected*. > > a bug in something that hooks into the kernel can fuck you over. worst > case, you need to reinstall everything. Yep. Alan, this is something that is very obvious to anyone who knows about systems and software architecture, which is why it's also unwise not to heed the advice of people who know better than you. -- 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 | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 01:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohi1nn.mpt.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #106849 |
In message <140520171942232894%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ofapdl$1l81$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> >> You can't argue that anti-malware software is "unwise" by saying it >> might have bugs, because that problem exists ALL THE TIME FOR ALL SOFTWARE. > the difference is that 'all software' doesn't hook into the kernel and > intercept all sorts of things and attempt to 'guess' at suspicious > activity. Neither does MalwareBytes. > a bug in an app only affects that one app. worst case, that app crashes > and maybe you lose a few minutes of work. other apps are *unaffected*. > a bug in something that hooks into the kernel can fuck you over. worst > case, you need to reinstall everything. But that is not at all what is being discussed. -- "He raised his hammer defiantly and opened his mouth to say, "Oh, yeah?" but stopped, because just by his ear he heard a growl. It was quite low and soft, but it had a complex little waveform which went straight down into a little knobbly bit in his spinal column where it pressed an ancient button marked Primal Terror."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens7omFo412U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106833 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:03 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 12:51 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> >>>> People do all sorts of ignorant and wasteful things rather than just >>>> using their computers as they were intended to be used; and none of >>>> it is wise. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. >>> >>> There are times when you won't know that it is broken. >> >> The same logic people use when they repair permissions over and over >> without need, among other things. > > Nope. Yup, people all over say they repair permissions periodically just in case: "I go to repair permissions and I get these files repaired. So, 10 minutes later I did repair permissions again (I had a hunch)" "I use a variety of Macs. Fixing permissions and repairing the HDs on a regular basis usually seems to keep things running more smoothly for me. ...in my experience I have found it better to do this on a regular basis." <https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/constant-repairing-of-permissions.672265/> "I have been repairing permissions via Disk Utility for the past 8 yrs....... well not CONSTANTLY! LOL When I had my old iBook G4 and running Panther I was told to repair permissions periodically" <https://macosx.com/threads/is-permissions-repair-still-necessary-in-todays-world.318565/> ...and *tons* more where that came from. -- 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 | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens7qjFo412U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106833 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:03 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >> Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe >> computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. > > "There's no need to babysit a car. Just change the oil and if it ain't > broke, don't worry about it." > > Makes as much sense. Only to the ignorant. -- 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 | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofaoct$lc2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #106827 |
On 2017-05-14 22:03:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14 12:51 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-14 12:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's very simple: Use safe computing practices. And don't fit it if it's >>>>> not broken. Unless you are experiencing a problem with symptoms that are >>>>> tied directly to adware or malware, there is no reason (it's not wise) >>>>> to install such utilities on your machine. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but in what way is it "not wise" to simply install and use a >>>> utility such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware? >>> >>> For no reason? To start, it's a complete waste of time and computing >>> resources. >> >> Like the minute it takes is significant. Try again. > > That's a minute you could have spent being productive. If your time is > worthless, by all means feel free to waste it. My time is worth more to > me. It certainly is very wasteful and significant when you do something > needlessly over and over for no reason, which is exactly what a high > number of ignorant people do. As an example, just look at how many web > sites out there recommend running repair permissions regularly - a > complete waste of time. > >>> Secondly, since there is no such thing as bug-free software, it may >>> introduce problem that otherwise wouldn't be there. >> >> No. > > As a veteran Mac software developer, my opinion on this is backed by > knowledge and experience; so it's of no consequence if you disagree. > >>> People also repair permissions for no reason, and it's a complete >>> waste of time and computing resources in the vast majority of cases >>> as well. >> >> That is completely non sequitur. > > Not at all. > >>> People do all sorts of ignorant and wasteful things rather than just >>> using their computers as they were intended to be used; and none of >>> it is wise. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> >> There are times when you won't know that it is broken. > > The same logic people use when they repair permissions over and over > without need, among other things. > >> Cars get regular service and inspection (if you're wise), precisely >> because you can catch problems before they become catastrophic. The >> exact same principle applies to anti-malware utilities and doing and >> occasional inspection. > > Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe > computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. Some don't know *everything* this is unsafe, and some don't know when it is "broke". Not everybody is a veteran software developer, as you surely know. The reason I asked the question initially was to explore what is and is not unsafe. If that's not wise route, I don't know what would be a better approach other than to be born wise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens984Fo412U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106839 |
On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 22:03:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > >> Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe >> computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. > > Some don't know *everything* this is unsafe, and some don't know when > it is "broke". Not everybody is a veteran software developer, as you > surely know. The reason I asked the question initially was to explore > what is and is not unsafe. If that's not wise route, I don't know what > would be a better approach other than to be born wise. Where are you confused? Don't download software from untrusted sources. Don't blindly follow instructions from a web site that spuriously claims your computer is supposedly insecure, hacked, needing a video codec, or whatever. Don't install software that you didn't specifically intend to install. These are all common sense, are they not? -- 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 | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofar39$99l$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #106855 |
On 2017-05-14 23:57:56 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14 22:03:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >> >>> Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe >>> computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. >> >> Some don't know *everything* this is unsafe, and some don't know when >> it is "broke". Not everybody is a veteran software developer, as you >> surely know. The reason I asked the question initially was to explore >> what is and is not unsafe. If that's not wise route, I don't know what >> would be a better approach other than to be born wise. > > Where are you confused? Don't download software from untrusted sources. I don't. > Don't blindly follow instructions from a web site that spuriously claims your > computer is supposedly insecure, hacked, needing a video codec, or > whatever. I don't. I come here and ask the elders. That's what I'm doing now. > Don't install software that you didn't specifically intend to > install. These are all common sense, are they not? Yes. My question was whether a specific applicatly should be trusted, and whether it would be wise to install.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ensaamFo412U13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106856 |
On 2017-05-15, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 23:57:56 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >> On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 22:03:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>> >>>> Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe >>>> computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. >>> >>> Some don't know *everything* this is unsafe, and some don't know when >>> it is "broke". Not everybody is a veteran software developer, as you >>> surely know. The reason I asked the question initially was to explore >>> what is and is not unsafe. If that's not wise route, I don't know what >>> would be a better approach other than to be born wise. >> >> Where are you confused? Don't download software from untrusted sources. > > I don't. > >> Don't blindly follow instructions from a web site that spuriously claims your >> computer is supposedly insecure, hacked, needing a video codec, or >> whatever. > > I don't. I come here and ask the elders. That's what I'm doing now. > >> Don't install software that you didn't specifically intend to >> install. These are all common sense, are they not? > > Yes. My question was whether a specific applicatly should be trusted, > and whether it would be wise to install. Well again, my answer is: If you don't have a problem, don't go searching for a solution. -- 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 | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 01:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohi1th.mpt.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #106855 |
In message <ens984Fo412U10@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14 22:03:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >> >>> Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe >>> computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. >> >> Some don't know *everything* this is unsafe, and some don't know when >> it is "broke". Not everybody is a veteran software developer, as you >> surely know. The reason I asked the question initially was to explore >> what is and is not unsafe. If that's not wise route, I don't know what >> would be a better approach other than to be born wise. > Where are you confused? Don't download software from untrusted sources. > Don't blindly follow instructions from a web site that spuriously claims your > computer is supposedly insecure, hacked, needing a video codec, or > whatever. Don't install software that you didn't specifically intend to > install. These are all common sense, are they not? In the last few months there have been multiple instances of signed Mac software or well-known Mac software having malware payloads in them. Simply being "smart" isn't necessarily enough. You use Handbrake, and that was infected with malware just this month. -- Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ensknvFrcrhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106864 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <ens984Fo412U10@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 22:03:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>> >>>> Nope. There is no need to constantly babysit a computer. Use safe >>>> computing practices, and if it ain't broke, don't worry about it. >>> >>> Some don't know *everything* this is unsafe, and some don't know when >>> it is "broke". Not everybody is a veteran software developer, as you >>> surely know. The reason I asked the question initially was to explore >>> what is and is not unsafe. If that's not wise route, I don't know what >>> would be a better approach other than to be born wise. > >> Where are you confused? Don't download software from untrusted sources. >> Don't blindly follow instructions from a web site that spuriously claims your >> computer is supposedly insecure, hacked, needing a video codec, or >> whatever. Don't install software that you didn't specifically intend to >> install. These are all common sense, are they not? > > In the last few months there have been multiple instances of signed Mac > software or well-known Mac software having malware payloads in them. > Simply being "smart" isn't necessarily enough. Sure. Yet antivirus software didn't protect against them. Let's not forget even in those limited cases, once affected you'd know it since most malware is indeed noticeable. There's little need to continually run antivirus software - especially when there are no symptoms or problems. > You use Handbrake, and that was infected with malware just this month. Yes I read about that. Most Handbrake users weren't affected. The Handbrake download was infected for a couple days which means only people who happened to download and install it during that time were potentially affected. How often do you download Handbrake? It's been months since I last updated my Handbrake install. And even if I had, the malware in this case was Trojan OSX.Proton.B which requires you to enter your password in an unsolicited dialog box to "install a codec", after which it presents other symptoms (like quitting Terminal and Console, which those of us who always have a terminal window open would surely notice quickly), among other things. -- 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 | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 11:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D53F43F100DF0973B02919BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #106855 |
On Sun, 14 May 2017 19:57:56 -0400, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <ens984Fo412U10@mid.individual.net>): > Don't download software from untrusted sources I know of at least two instances where software from trusted sources contained malware because the developers' sites were hacked: Handbrake and Transmission. And that one twice. I just not that sanguine that safe computing practices are sufficient. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <enu56rF6vklU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106881 |
On 2017-05-15, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 May 2017 19:57:56 -0400, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <ens984Fo412U10@mid.individual.net>): > >> Don't download software from untrusted sources > > I know of at least two instances where software from trusted sources > contained malware because the developers' sites were hacked: Handbrake > and Transmission. And that one twice. In both of those cases the downloaded file's checksum didn't match the trusted checksum for the download. The relevant safe computing practice is to verify that the file you download has a checksum that matches the published trusted checksum for that download. In fact, users who did check to ensure the checksum of what they downloaded matched the trusted published checksum noticed the problem immediately: --- I'm already a Transmission user, so I usually do the update within Transmission. Friday, though, my update in Transmission failed due to a wrong signature. I then proceeded to a download through the web page. That download produced the same message the OP had. I checked the signature against the one posted on the web-page, and of course it was wrong: $ openssl sha1 Transmission-2.90.dmg SHA1(Transmission-2.90.dmg)= 5f8ae46ae82e346000f366c3eabdafbec76e99e9 I'm not sure, if I downloaded the file through the https site or with an http url at the time. Safari does think it was https, though, and I can't remember any warnings. As a source for the offending file Safari stored https://download.transmissionbt.com/files/Transmission-2.90.dmg, https://www.transmissionbt.com/download/ in the file metadata. Not sure how accurate that is, though. I re-downloaded again this morning, this time the file was ok and the sha1 was correct. Although, Safari lists cachefly as the source of the correct file, not transmissionbt.com: https://transmission.cachefly.net/Transmission-2.90.dmg, https://www.transmissionbt.com/download/ --- <https://forum.transmissionbt.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17834#p73067> > I just not that sanguine that safe computing practices are sufficient. Safe computing practices (notice that is *plural*) are mostly sufficient to stay safe. Are there exceptions from time to time? Sure. Does it require that we review our safe practices regularly to ensure they are up to date? Sure. I don't think anyone has claimed being safe doesn't take vigilance. -- 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 | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 21:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <140520172116564213%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #106816 |
In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >On 2017-05-14 12:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 05:23:35 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>> >>>> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-13 21:08:32 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-05-13, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I occasionally run Windows XP in a Parallels Virtual Machine to access >>>>>>> Apps that only run on Windows. If I picked up the WCry worm, losing >>>>>>> the files on the VM would be a minor annoyance. But could the malware >>>>>>> access the other files on my Mac? Especially if I had shared my home >>>>>>> folder, etc. I'm thinking yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you share any files on your Mac with the guest OS, then of course the >>>>>> guest OS has access to them. You mentioned sharing your entire home >>>>>> folder, which is a really bad idea. Instead, create a new, empty folder >>>>>> and share only that folder. Then when you need to access files on the >>>>>> Mac side, copy or move them into and out of that folder as needed. >>>>> >>>>> With this and other in mind wouldn't it be wise to install RansomWhere? >>>> >>>> Nope. There's no need for special software to protect you from ransomware >>>> since simple safe computing practices will prevent it from ever being >>>> installed in the first place. >>> >>> Isn't MalwareBytes Anti-Malware unnecessary for the same reason? >> >> It's very simple: Use safe computing practices. And don't fit it if it's >> not broken. Unless you are experiencing a problem with symptoms that are >> tied directly to adware or malware, there is no reason (it's not wise) >> to install such utilities on your machine. > >Sorry, but in what way is it "not wise" to simply install and use a >utility such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware? To do what? To stop the zero viruses there are for OS X? Why should I install some piece of software that may, for all I know, hook into the OS at some low level and either introduce bugs or expose it to problems. Or, worst case, be entirely fake and be malware itself. And, en plus, does OS X anyway not come with Apple's built-in anti-malware that is automatically updated to counter what few threats there are? So why should I use anything else? -- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofaefd$14e5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106819 |
On 2017-05-14 1:16 PM, Tim Streater wrote: > In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2017-05-14 12:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-14 05:23:35 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>>> >>>>> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-05-13 21:08:32 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-05-13, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> I occasionally run Windows XP in a Parallels Virtual Machine to >>>>>>>> access >>>>>>>> Apps that only run on Windows. If I picked up the WCry worm, >>>>>>>> losing >>>>>>>> the files on the VM would be a minor annoyance. But could the >>>>>>>> malware >>>>>>>> access the other files on my Mac? Especially if I had shared my >>>>>>>> home >>>>>>>> folder, etc. I'm thinking yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you share any files on your Mac with the guest OS, then of >>>>>>> course the >>>>>>> guest OS has access to them. You mentioned sharing your entire home >>>>>>> folder, which is a really bad idea. Instead, create a new, empty >>>>>>> folder >>>>>>> and share only that folder. Then when you need to access files on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Mac side, copy or move them into and out of that folder as needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this and other in mind wouldn't it be wise to install >>>>>> RansomWhere? >>>>> >>>>> Nope. There's no need for special software to protect you from >>>>> ransomware >>>>> since simple safe computing practices will prevent it from ever being >>>>> installed in the first place. >>>> >>>> Isn't MalwareBytes Anti-Malware unnecessary for the same reason? >>> >>> It's very simple: Use safe computing practices. And don't fit it if it's >>> not broken. Unless you are experiencing a problem with symptoms that are >>> tied directly to adware or malware, there is no reason (it's not wise) >>> to install such utilities on your machine. >> >> Sorry, but in what way is it "not wise" to simply install and use a >> utility such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware? > > To do what? To stop the zero viruses there are for OS X? Why should I Even if that's true, there are other forms of malware than viruses. > install some piece of software that may, for all I know, hook into the > OS at some low level and either introduce bugs or expose it to > problems. Or, worst case, be entirely fake and be malware itself. Except it's NOT fake and that is easily checked by doing some appropriate research... ...which you do for EVERY software installation, right? > > And, en plus, does OS X anyway not come with Apple's built-in > anti-malware that is automatically updated to counter what few threats > there are? So why should I use anything else? Belt and suspenders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohi2n9.mpt.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #106821 |
In message <ofaefd$14e5$1@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > Belt and suspenders. How can you trust a man who can't trust his own pants? -- History has a habit of changing the people who think they are changing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens2u9Fnn0oU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106819 |
On 2017-05-14, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker ><alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>On 2017-05-14 12:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> >>> It's very simple: Use safe computing practices. And don't fit it if it's >>> not broken. Unless you are experiencing a problem with symptoms that are >>> tied directly to adware or malware, there is no reason (it's not wise) >>> to install such utilities on your machine. >> >>Sorry, but in what way is it "not wise" to simply install and use a >>utility such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware? > > To do what? To stop the zero viruses there are for OS X? Why should I > install some piece of software that may, for all I know, hook into the > OS at some low level and either introduce bugs or expose it to > problems. Or, worst case, be entirely fake and be malware itself. Yep, and it has been demonstrated time and again that anti-virus utilities (especially the ones written for macOS) are notoriously buggy and ineffective, often causing more problems than they actually solve. Running them when there are no symptoms and no problems is unwise. > And, en plus, does OS X anyway not come with Apple's built-in > anti-malware that is automatically updated to counter what few threats > there are? So why should I use anything else? Apple's built-in protections are indeed good, but there are some things they do not look for - namely adware, which is typically downloaded and installed by unwary, ignorant users who believe the web page that instructed them to download "Adobe Flash" or some "Mac security/optimizer" program because their computer is supposedly "infected/insecure". Those are typically not as dangerous as legitimate viruses and malware, but if you do find your browser is comparomised, MalwareBytes and KnockKnock are great third-party tools to find and rid yourself of them. My point, though, was that if you have no symptoms, and have no problems, there is no need to do anything at all. -- 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 | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofansh$1jjr$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106829 |
On 2017-05-14 3:10 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2017-05-14, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >> In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker >> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 12:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> >>>> It's very simple: Use safe computing practices. And don't fit it if it's >>>> not broken. Unless you are experiencing a problem with symptoms that are >>>> tied directly to adware or malware, there is no reason (it's not wise) >>>> to install such utilities on your machine. >>> >>> Sorry, but in what way is it "not wise" to simply install and use a >>> utility such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware? >> >> To do what? To stop the zero viruses there are for OS X? Why should I >> install some piece of software that may, for all I know, hook into the >> OS at some low level and either introduce bugs or expose it to >> problems. Or, worst case, be entirely fake and be malware itself. > > Yep, and it has been demonstrated time and again that anti-virus > utilities (especially the ones written for macOS) are notoriously buggy > and ineffective, often causing more problems than they actually solve. > Running them when there are no symptoms and no problems is unwise. Show were that has been demonstrated. > >> And, en plus, does OS X anyway not come with Apple's built-in >> anti-malware that is automatically updated to counter what few threats >> there are? So why should I use anything else? > > Apple's built-in protections are indeed good, but there are some things > they do not look for - namely adware, which is typically downloaded and > installed by unwary, ignorant users who believe the web page that > instructed them to download "Adobe Flash" or some "Mac > security/optimizer" program because their computer is supposedly > "infected/insecure". Those are typically not as dangerous as legitimate > viruses and malware, but if you do find your browser is comparomised, > MalwareBytes and KnockKnock are great third-party tools to find and rid > yourself of them. But according to you, we should disable those built-in protections, right? > > My point, though, was that if you have no symptoms, and have no > problems, there is no need to do anything at all. Nope. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens8nnFo412U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106834 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:10 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-14, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >>> In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker >>> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-14 12:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's very simple: Use safe computing practices. And don't fit it if it's >>>>> not broken. Unless you are experiencing a problem with symptoms that are >>>>> tied directly to adware or malware, there is no reason (it's not wise) >>>>> to install such utilities on your machine. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but in what way is it "not wise" to simply install and use a >>>> utility such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware? >>> >>> To do what? To stop the zero viruses there are for OS X? Why should I >>> install some piece of software that may, for all I know, hook into the >>> OS at some low level and either introduce bugs or expose it to >>> problems. Or, worst case, be entirely fake and be malware itself. >> >> Yep, and it has been demonstrated time and again that anti-virus >> utilities (especially the ones written for macOS) are notoriously buggy >> and ineffective, often causing more problems than they actually solve. >> Running them when there are no symptoms and no problems is unwise. > > Show were that has been demonstrated. Sure: --- Google security researchers have discovered a bug in Mac antivirus software that exposes Macs to remote hacking. The critical vulnerability was discovered last November, in ESET’s Endpoint Antivirus 6 for macOS, by Google Security Team members Jason Geffner and Jan Bee. According to ESET’s website, the software provides “comprehensive endpoint protection for macOS” and “eliminates all types of threats, including viruses, rootkits, worms and spyware.” As it turns out, an update made to ESET’s antivirus package in October 2016 contained an outdated XML parsing library from 2007. The result was that vulnerable versions of ESET Endpoint Antivirus 6 “do not perform proper server authentication, allowing for remote unauthenticated attackers to perform arbitrary code execution as root on vulnerable clients,” the Google researchers wrote in their full vulnerability disclosure. The old parser library in question is the POCO XML parser library, which is known to be vulnerable to a buffer overflow bug. The XML library bug allows malicious agents to perform man-in-the-middle attacks to intercept licensing credential transfers and deliver malformed XML documents using a forged HTTPS certificate, granting them root level privileges to the target Mac. Once they have the ability to push root-level code execution, hackers can wreak a significant amount of havoc. --- <https://www.idropnews.com/news/fast-tech/hazardous-bug-ironically-discovered-mac-antivirus-software/33319/> --- First, let's look at some of the problems that have been caused, on a widespread basis, by Symantec's Norton AntiVirus: Ironically, a "highly critical" flaw was found in Norton AntiVirus. The vulnerability was as follows: During decompression of RAR files Symantec is vulnerable to multiple heap overflows allowing attackers complete control of the system(s) being protected. These vulnerabilities can be exploited remotely without user interaction in default configurations through common protocols such as SMTP. Symantec posted an antivirus based protection signature to LiveUpdate on December 20, 2005, providing a heuristic detection for potential exploits of the Symantec decomposer RAR archive vulnerability. The company also recommended that users 'Scan Compressed Files' to 'Off' in the Norton Auto-Protect pane of System Preferences to mitigate this vulnerability. Version 9.0 of Norton Antivirus spawned a file appropriately named "spacesuckingfile.xxxxxx" after it completed a virus scan. This was a temporary file that Norton AntiVirus created when scanning archives on your computer to help determine the amount of free space available on the disk before it begins unstuffing and scanning archives. The file contains no actual data and may be deleted. Normally, Norton AntiVirus deletes this file when scanning the archives is complete, though it may not be deleted automatically. Version 9.0.1 of Norton AntiVirus resolved this issue. The AutoProtect component of Norton AntiVirus produced an issue with apparent corruption of Mac OS X temp files that could result in spiking processor usage and complete system unresponsiveness. Sophos Anti-Virus is another popular tool that has succumbed to its own flaws in an attempt to "protect" users against a malware threat. A previous version of Sophos' AntiVirus software generated false positives for the "OSX/Inqtana.B worm", invoking users to delete critical application and system files and causing serious issues. Inqtana.B was a variant of OSX/Inqtana.A -- a Java based proof of concept bluetooth worm that affects older versions of Mac OS X 10.4.x (Tiger). The vulnerability did not affect Mac OS X 10.4.5 or Mac OS X 10.4.6, and had not been found in the wild. Despite that, Sophos' software was identifying "infected" files -- sometimes numbering in the thousands -- on Mac OS X 10.4.5 systems. Sophos quickly resolved the issue, but results of the false positives were, in some cases, disastrous. Users who thought their systems were infected deleted dozens (in some cases hundreds) of critical files rendering some applications useless and eliminating important data. Virex from McAfee (the company that released the aforementioned warning that Mac malware threats were up more than 200 percent in the past year) was a component of the .Mac subscribers package up until mid-2005, when Apple decided to pull the offering due to a number of issues documented here on MacFixIt, including slow overall system performance, constant fan activity, degraded performance in some applications and more. We also posted instructions for removing Virex from a Mac OS X system. --- <https://www.cnet.com/news/mac-os-x-anti-virus-software-more-trouble-than-its-worth/> Of course all of this is well known to anyone who has been paying attention - especially software developers. Next you'll no doubt come up with some bullshit excuse to discount these as irrelevant or some other nonsense. You can play that game by yourself. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who is clearly ignorant and spouting bad advice here. -- 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 | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens8qqFo412U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106834 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:10 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >> Apple's built-in protections are indeed good, but there are some things >> they do not look for - namely adware, which is typically downloaded and >> installed by unwary, ignorant users who believe the web page that >> instructed them to download "Adobe Flash" or some "Mac >> security/optimizer" program because their computer is supposedly >> "infected/insecure". Those are typically not as dangerous as legitimate >> viruses and malware, but if you do find your browser is comparomised, >> MalwareBytes and KnockKnock are great third-party tools to find and rid >> yourself of them. > > But according to you, we should disable those built-in protections, right? Nope. I said no such thing, and you know it. Another fail for you. Keep trying if you feel you must though. >> My point, though, was that if you have no symptoms, and have no >> problems, there is no need to do anything at all. > > Nope. Yup. -- 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]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web