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 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofaogl$lgr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #106829 |
On 2017-05-14 22:10:17 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2017-05-14, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >> In article <ofabrk$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. Ransomware produces a symptom and a problem at the same time: Somebody else has your disk encrypted. In order to del with a symptom/problem you have to get ahead of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 00:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens9eoFo412U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106840 |
On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 22:10:17 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > >> 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. > > Ransomware produces a symptom and a problem at the same time: Somebody > else has your disk encrypted. In order to del with a symptom/problem > you have to get ahead of it. You "get ahead of it" by refraining from installing it. Ransomware doesn't get installed via magic - it requires you to download a software package from an untrustworthy source, run the installer, and supply administrator credentials when prompted. Don't do those things, and the "problem" is proactively solved - and without anti-virus utilities (imagine that!)... -- 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 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofat8p$8p0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #106857 |
On 2017-05-15 00:01:29 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14 22:10:17 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >> >>> 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. >> >> Ransomware produces a symptom and a problem at the same time: Somebody >> else has your disk encrypted. In order to del with a symptom/problem >> you have to get ahead of it. > > You "get ahead of it" by refraining from installing it. Ransomware > doesn't get installed via magic - it requires you to download a software > package from an untrustworthy source, run the installer, and supply > administrator credentials when prompted. Don't do those things, and > the "problem" is proactively solved - and without anti-virus utilities > (imagine that!)... Actualy I heard an "expert" say that you could have gotten this particular ransomware issue if you were simply on the *network* with others that were infected. Yes, they were speaking about Windows, not the Mac. But as I'm told repeatedly whatever malevolence visits Windows it will eventually visit the Mac. And a side-question for all the Windows people I'm encountering who tell me I should be worrying because someday their maladies will be mine: Have we yet had either ransomware or a virus *in the wild* that infected Mac systems?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 01:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <enscteFpi01U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106860 |
On 2017-05-15, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > On 2017-05-15 00:01:29 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > >> On 2017-05-14, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 22:10:17 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Ransomware produces a symptom and a problem at the same time: >>> Somebody else has your disk encrypted. In order to del with a >>> symptom/problem you have to get ahead of it. >> >> You "get ahead of it" by refraining from installing it. Ransomware >> doesn't get installed via magic - it requires you to download a >> software package from an untrustworthy source, run the installer, and >> supply administrator credentials when prompted. Don't do those >> things, and the "problem" is proactively solved - and without >> anti-virus utilities (imagine that!)... > > Actualy I heard an "expert" say that you could have gotten this > particular ransomware issue if you were simply on the *network* with > others that were infected. Yes, they were speaking about Windows, not > the Mac. Exactly. What this "expert" omitted is it can't happen on a Mac due to the increased security measures employed by the OS. > But as I'm told repeatedly whatever malevolence visits Windows it will > eventually visit the Mac. They've been trotting that tired line out for *decades*. Don't listen to such ignorance. The design and architecture of macOS (and UNIX) is *significantly* different than Windows. And those technical differences make it *much* harder for self-propagating viruses to work (which is why there are none in the wild for OS X, which has been the case since the beginning). > And a side-question for all the Windows people I'm encountering who > tell me I should be worrying because someday their maladies will be > mine: Have we yet had either ransomware or a virus *in the wild* that > infected Mac systems? As far as viruses go, there are *no* OS X viruses in the wild - period. There is macOS malware (including one piece of ransomware called KeRanger), but they are all in the form of a trojan (a piece of software the user must be tricked into actively downloading, installing, and giving administrator credentials to for it to do anything). So safe computing practices will naturally avoid most everything nefarious out there for macOS. There are occasionally exceptions, typically involving web browser security vulnerabilities, but Apple updates the built-in protections relatively quickly once they are known about. -- 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 01:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohi2gt.mpt.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #106819 |
In message <140520172116564213%timstreater@greenbee.net> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > 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? XProtect is very good, but it is reactive. It did nothing for the people who downloaded the infested Handbrake this month before the issue was discovered (what was that, 4 days worth of downloads?). Most "anti-virus" software is nothing more than a rootkit that pwns your computer, however that is not at all what MalwareBytes is, it's simple a scanner. No kernel extensions. I don't even think it installs launch services unless you setup periodic scans. Malwarebytes also has a nifty snapshot ability which lets you install something and then easily check what it actually did. I don't use that either since I can parse an install log, but it's useful for muggles. -- I went down the street to the 24-hour grocery. When I got there, the guy was locking the front door. I said, "Hey, the sign says you're open 24 hours." He said, "Yes, but not in a row." -- Steven Wright
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 03:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ensl35Frf2tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106866 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <140520172116564213%timstreater@greenbee.net> Tim Streater > <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >> 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? > > XProtect is very good, but it is reactive. It did nothing for the people > who downloaded the infested Handbrake this month before the issue was > discovered (what was that, 4 days worth of downloads?). Antivirus software did nothing for them either. It's also reactive by that definition. > Most "anti-virus" software is nothing more than a rootkit that pwns your > computer, however that is not at all what MalwareBytes is, it's simple a > scanner. No kernel extensions. I don't even think it installs launch > services unless you setup periodic scans. Malwarebytes also did nothing to protect against the Handbrake Trojan though. It would only see it after you ran a scan after being infected. The Handbrake trojan displayed an unsolicited dialog box asking for a password. It turns out using the safe computing practice of refraining from entering your password in that unsolicited dialog box is the best way to prevent infection. Go figure... -- 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 05:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohif03.17gl.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #106870 |
In message <ensl35Frf2tU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <140520172116564213%timstreater@greenbee.net> Tim Streater >> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >>> 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? >> >> XProtect is very good, but it is reactive. It did nothing for the people >> who downloaded the infested Handbrake this month before the issue was >> discovered (what was that, 4 days worth of downloads?). > Antivirus software did nothing for them either. It's also reactive by that > definition. >> Most "anti-virus" software is nothing more than a rootkit that pwns your >> computer, however that is not at all what MalwareBytes is, it's simple a >> scanner. No kernel extensions. I don't even think it installs launch >> services unless you setup periodic scans. > Malwarebytes also did nothing to protect against the Handbrake Trojan > though. It would only see it after you ran a scan after being infected. Malwarebytes on the Mac doesn't *prevent* anything, because it is simply a scanner. This means it doesn't have the rootkit, kernel extension, man-in-the-middle certs issues that most so-called anti-viruses have. At least not on the Mac. > The Handbrake trojan displayed an unsolicited dialog box asking for a > password. Which is so common when installing or first running a program that the vast majority of people would never even think about it. > It turns out using the safe computing practice of refraining from > entering your password in that unsolicited dialog box is the best way to > prevent infection. Go figure... Most people are not perfect. -- 'Somewhere, A Crime Is Happening,' said Dorfl. --Feet of Clay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <entuptF68e1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106872 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <ensl35Frf2tU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>> In message <140520172116564213%timstreater@greenbee.net> Tim Streater >>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> XProtect is very good, but it is reactive. It did nothing for the people >>> who downloaded the infested Handbrake this month before the issue was >>> discovered (what was that, 4 days worth of downloads?). > >> Antivirus software did nothing for them either. It's also reactive by that >> definition. > >>> Most "anti-virus" software is nothing more than a rootkit that pwns your >>> computer, however that is not at all what MalwareBytes is, it's simple a >>> scanner. No kernel extensions. I don't even think it installs launch >>> services unless you setup periodic scans. > >> Malwarebytes also did nothing to protect against the Handbrake Trojan >> though. It would only see it after you ran a scan after being infected. > > Malwarebytes on the Mac doesn't *prevent* anything, Glad you agree. >> The Handbrake trojan displayed an unsolicited dialog box asking for a >> password. > > Which is so common Not for Handbrake, no. -- 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 | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140520171652492417%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #106816 |
In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> 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? because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you over. > >> I think there are no estimated at more than 45,000 reasons in ~100 > >> countries to believe that "simple safe computing practices" aren't the > >> normi > > > > Speak for yourself. My computing practices are such that I never worry > > about malware on my machines. Your computing practices are *completely* > > within *your* control. ; ) > > Sorry, but you're wrong. > > You are right in your assessment that if you don't do anything foolish, > your chances of having a malware infection are very slim, but they are > still there. the chances of a failure of any type, including hard drive failure, directory corruption where the hard drive works but is unreadable, logic board failure and various other failures are also slim, yet still there. the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your backup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofagq1$18pd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106823 |
On 2017-05-14 1:52 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>> 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? > > because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. No. It does not make things worse. > > anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels > of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you > over. Nope. That is incorrect. Always on anti-malware might need to do that, but that's not the only way to use it. > >>>> I think there are no estimated at more than 45,000 reasons in ~100 >>>> countries to believe that "simple safe computing practices" aren't the >>>> normi >>> >>> Speak for yourself. My computing practices are such that I never worry >>> about malware on my machines. Your computing practices are *completely* >>> within *your* control. ; ) >> >> Sorry, but you're wrong. >> >> You are right in your assessment that if you don't do anything foolish, >> your chances of having a malware infection are very slim, but they are >> still there. > > the chances of a failure of any type, including hard drive failure, > directory corruption where the hard drive works but is unreadable, > logic board failure and various other failures are also slim, yet still > there. Yes. Also true. > > the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what > might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your > backup. Also a good idea, but when I can do the occasional check to make sure that not only is there no catastrophic malware on the system, but also the annoying "potentially unwanted program"-level malware, I'm happier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140520171727548734%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #106825 |
In article <ofagq1$18pd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>> 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? > > > > because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. > > No. It does not make things worse. yes it absolutely does. bugs in anti-malware apps have caused all sorts of problems over the years and that hasn't changed (nor will it). one of my favourites is when norton quarantined the virtual memory swap files. > > anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels > > of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you > > over. > > Nope. That is incorrect. Always on anti-malware might need to do that, > but that's not the only way to use it. it doesn't matter how it's used. it's not needed, not reliable and the biggest problem is that it gives a false sense of security. the bad guys are taking advantage of zero-days. you'd need to wait until your anti-malware utility is updated to even be able to detect it. > >>>> I think there are no estimated at more than 45,000 reasons in ~100 > >>>> countries to believe that "simple safe computing practices" aren't the > >>>> normi > >>> > >>> Speak for yourself. My computing practices are such that I never worry > >>> about malware on my machines. Your computing practices are *completely* > >>> within *your* control. ; ) > >> > >> Sorry, but you're wrong. > >> > >> You are right in your assessment that if you don't do anything foolish, > >> your chances of having a malware infection are very slim, but they are > >> still there. > > > > the chances of a failure of any type, including hard drive failure, > > directory corruption where the hard drive works but is unreadable, > > logic board failure and various other failures are also slim, yet still > > there. > > Yes. Also true. > > > > > the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what > > might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your > > backup. > > Also a good idea, but when I can do the occasional check to make sure > that not only is there no catastrophic malware on the system, but also > the annoying "potentially unwanted program"-level malware, I'm happier. a check is not a guarantee of anything. it's a false sense of security.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens3d4Fnn0oU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106826 |
On 2017-05-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ofagq1$18pd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker ><alangbaker@telus.net> 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? >>> >>> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. >> >> No. It does not make things worse. > > yes it absolutely does. > > bugs in anti-malware apps have caused all sorts of problems over the > years and that hasn't changed (nor will it). > > one of my favourites is when norton quarantined the virtual memory > swap files. Yep. Even worse, they often actually open your computer up to even *more* exploits (making you even less secure) due to the lazy way in which anti-virus utilities are designed: <http://www.pcworld.com/article/2459760/antivirus-products-riddled-with-security-flaws-researcher-says.html> > it doesn't matter how it's used. it's not needed, not reliable and the > biggest problem is that it gives a false sense of security. > > the bad guys are taking advantage of zero-days. you'd need to wait > until your anti-malware utility is updated to even be able to detect > it. Yep - they offer nothing more than a complete false sense of security, just because it makes you *feel* better. Unwise indeed. Bottom line: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- 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 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofao22$1jjr$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106831 |
On 2017-05-14 3:18 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2017-05-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article <ofagq1$18pd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker >> <alangbaker@telus.net> 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? >>>> >>>> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. >>> >>> No. It does not make things worse. >> >> yes it absolutely does. >> >> bugs in anti-malware apps have caused all sorts of problems over the >> years and that hasn't changed (nor will it). >> >> one of my favourites is when norton quarantined the virtual memory >> swap files. > > Yep. Even worse, they often actually open your computer up to even > *more* exploits (making you even less secure) due to the lazy way in > which anti-virus utilities are designed: > > <http://www.pcworld.com/article/2459760/antivirus-products-riddled-with-security-flaws-researcher-says.html> That is a general problem of software, sorry. > >> it doesn't matter how it's used. it's not needed, not reliable and the >> biggest problem is that it gives a false sense of security. >> >> the bad guys are taking advantage of zero-days. you'd need to wait >> until your anti-malware utility is updated to even be able to detect >> it. > > Yep - they offer nothing more than a complete false sense of security, > just because it makes you *feel* better. Unwise indeed. Bottom line: if > it ain't broke, don't fix it. I hope you don't treat your car that way...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens904Fo412U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106836 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:18 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> bugs in anti-malware apps have caused all sorts of problems over the >>> years and that hasn't changed (nor will it). >>> >>> one of my favourites is when norton quarantined the virtual memory >>> swap files. >> >> Yep. Even worse, they often actually open your computer up to even >> *more* exploits (making you even less secure) due to the lazy way in >> which anti-virus utilities are designed: >> >> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/2459760/antivirus-products-riddled-with-security-flaws-researcher-says.html> > > That is a general problem of software, sorry. It's *especially* a problem with anti-virus utilities due to the fact that they mess with low-level parts of the system, sorry. >> Yep - they offer nothing more than a complete false sense of security, >> just because it makes you *feel* better. Unwise indeed. Bottom line: if >> it ain't broke, don't fix it. > > I hope you don't treat your car that way... I don't since they aren't in any way the same type of thing. Another WINNING fail for 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 | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofanm8$1jjr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106826 |
On 2017-05-14 2:27 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <ofagq1$18pd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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? >>> >>> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. >> >> No. It does not make things worse. > > yes it absolutely does. Nope. > > bugs in anti-malware apps have caused all sorts of problems over the > years and that hasn't changed (nor will it). By that argument, you're only safe if you don't actually turn the computer on. > > one of my favourites is when norton quarantined the virtual memory swap > files. Cite, please... > >>> anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels >>> of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you >>> over. >> >> Nope. That is incorrect. Always on anti-malware might need to do that, >> but that's not the only way to use it. > > it doesn't matter how it's used. it's not needed, not reliable and the > biggest problem is that it gives a false sense of security. I noted the way you avoided acknowledging that I rebutted the point you made. > > the bad guys are taking advantage of zero-days. you'd need to wait > until your anti-malware utility is updated to even be able to detect > it. Still better than nothing, sorry. > >>>>>> I think there are no estimated at more than 45,000 reasons in ~100 >>>>>> countries to believe that "simple safe computing practices" aren't the >>>>>> normi >>>>> >>>>> Speak for yourself. My computing practices are such that I never worry >>>>> about malware on my machines. Your computing practices are *completely* >>>>> within *your* control. ; ) >>>> >>>> Sorry, but you're wrong. >>>> >>>> You are right in your assessment that if you don't do anything foolish, >>>> your chances of having a malware infection are very slim, but they are >>>> still there. >>> >>> the chances of a failure of any type, including hard drive failure, >>> directory corruption where the hard drive works but is unreadable, >>> logic board failure and various other failures are also slim, yet still >>> there. >> >> Yes. Also true. >> >>> >>> the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what >>> might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your >>> backup. >> >> Also a good idea, but when I can do the occasional check to make sure >> that not only is there no catastrophic malware on the system, but also >> the annoying "potentially unwanted program"-level malware, I'm happier. > > a check is not a guarantee of anything. No. It's not. > > it's a false sense of security. Nope. It's a reasonable step in safeguarding oneself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 19:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140520171926386175%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #106832 |
In article <ofanm8$1jjr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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? > >>> > >>> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. > >> > >> No. It does not make things worse. > > > > yes it absolutely does. > > Nope. wrong. anti-malware apps cause more problems than they attempt to solve. this is *well* documented. > > bugs in anti-malware apps have caused all sorts of problems over the > > years and that hasn't changed (nor will it). > > By that argument, you're only safe if you don't actually turn the > computer on. straw man. > > one of my favourites is when norton quarantined the virtual memory swap > > files. > > Cite, please... <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/10/symantec_mac_false_alarm/> A false positive in Norton AntiVirus (NAV) for Macintosh left many Apple fans fearful that their machines had become infected with a Trojan last week. The glitch - triggered by a rogue virus definition update - left Mac users running various versions of NAV for Mac under the false impression that their swap files were infected with malware called "Hacktool.Underhand". The bogus warnings were frequently accompanied by system crashes on machines running Mac OS X. <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/709554?start=0&tstart=0> And let's not forget, of course, that it is possible for a signature to falsely identify a non-harmful file as a "virus." Twice so far, Symantec has released signature files that mistakenly believe that an ordinary file is a "virus." Once, the file erroneously identified as a "virus" was the Mac OS X memory swap file; users who installed this update and then "removed" the "virus" caused severe damage to their operating systems! also from the above link, several other fuckups: - A bug which can consume all of the space on your hard drive. - An extremely serious bug which can destroy your ability to authenticate with a password. This means you cannot install software, you cannot run Apple Software Update, and you cannot modify the system. I have yet to find any solution other than a complete reinstall of OS X for this problem. - A data-corruption bug which causes it to destroy files when you use the Save command from Adobe products such as Photoshop and InDesign. The file seems to save OK, but it is corrupted by Norton as it is saved. You will not know the file is corrupted until you go to try to use it later. and it ain't just macs: <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. > >>> anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels > >>> of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you > >>> over. > >> > >> Nope. That is incorrect. Always on anti-malware might need to do that, > >> but that's not the only way to use it. > > > > it doesn't matter how it's used. it's not needed, not reliable and the > > biggest problem is that it gives a false sense of security. > > I noted the way you avoided acknowledging that I rebutted the point you > made. you did not. > > the bad guys are taking advantage of zero-days. you'd need to wait > > until your anti-malware utility is updated to even be able to detect > > it. > > Still better than nothing, sorry. it's actually worse because it's a false sense of security. > >>> > >>> the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what > >>> might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your > >>> backup. > >> > >> Also a good idea, but when I can do the occasional check to make sure > >> that not only is there no catastrophic malware on the system, but also > >> the annoying "potentially unwanted program"-level malware, I'm happier. > > > > a check is not a guarantee of anything. > > No. It's not. so why bother? it's a false sense of security. you're not any better off. > > it's a false sense of security. > > Nope. It's a reasonable step in safeguarding oneself. not in the least. you can still be pwned if you click the wrong link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens35pFnn0oU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106825 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 1:52 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker >> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> >>>>> 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? >> >> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. > > No. It does not make things worse. That's your very misguided opinion, which can be easily proven wrong and thus discarded. It's been shown many times over that Mac anti-virus tools cause problems. The fact is there is no such thing as bug-free software, and anti-virus utilities in particular hook into system internals to a greater extent than other software, where bugs can cause more serious performance and security problems. So installing them needlessly is unwise. >> anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels >> of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you >> over. > > Nope. That is incorrect. It's absolutely correct and pertinent. > Always on anti-malware might need to do that You just contradicted yourself. >> the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what >> might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your >> backup. > > Also a good idea, but when I can do the occasional check to make sure > that not only is there no catastrophic malware on the system, but also > the annoying "potentially unwanted program"-level malware, I'm happier. Translation: "It makes me *feel* good to babysit my system, even when there are no problems at all." <- all emotion, no logic. -- 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 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofao0l$1jjr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106830 |
On 2017-05-14 3:14 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14 1:52 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker >>> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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? >>> >>> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. >> >> No. It does not make things worse. > > That's your very misguided opinion, which can be easily proven wrong and > thus discarded. It's been shown many times over that Mac anti-virus > tools cause problems. The fact is there is no such thing as bug-free > software, and anti-virus utilities in particular hook into system > internals to a greater extent than other software, where bugs can cause > more serious performance and security problems. So installing them > needlessly is unwise. Show where that has been shown. > >>> anti-malware apps by their very nature must hook into the lowest levels >>> of the system, which means that even the smallest bug can fuck you >>> over. >> >> Nope. That is incorrect. > > It's absolutely correct and pertinent. No. It is absolutely incorrect. SOME anti-malware tools do that, but not all. > >> Always on anti-malware might need to do that > > You just contradicted yourself. I'm replacing an absolute statement with the facts. A particular CLASS of anti-malware can be said to behave in that manner, not ALL anti-malware. > >>> the solution is to have a solid backup strategy, so no matter what >>> might go wrong, you fix/replace the problem and then restore from your >>> backup. >> >> Also a good idea, but when I can do the occasional check to make sure >> that not only is there no catastrophic malware on the system, but also >> the annoying "potentially unwanted program"-level malware, I'm happier. > > Translation: "It makes me *feel* good to babysit my system, even when > there are no problems at all." <- all emotion, no logic. I also get my car taken in for regular service and inspection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens8snFo412U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106835 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:14 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-14 1:52 PM, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <ofabrk$vp8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker >>>> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> because it's not necessary and generally makes things worse. >>> >>> No. It does not make things worse. >> >> That's your very misguided opinion, which can be easily proven wrong and >> thus discarded. It's been shown many times over that Mac anti-virus >> tools cause problems. The fact is there is no such thing as bug-free >> software, and anti-virus utilities in particular hook into system >> internals to a greater extent than other software, where bugs can cause >> more serious performance and security problems. So installing them >> needlessly is unwise. > > Show where that has been shown. Just did in the other sub-thread where you asked for it. Another hard fail for you. Tired of WINNING yet? -- 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 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D53F40A100DE42B8B02919BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #106814 |
On Sun, 14 May 2017 15:17:15 -0400, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <enroprFle3lU1@mid.individual.net>): > 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. From what I've read on ArsTechnica and other places there is, as yet, no evidence the initial vector was a link in an email or a visit to a sketchy website... although that seems likely. However, once established, it propagates as a worm which requires more than simple safe computing practices to stop. The operative technology was developed by NSA to penetrate the Iranian centrifuge control network, for example. I think safe computing is probably like locking your car door figuring the thief will move on to the next unlocked vehicle. It will not protect your car from a determined thief. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web