Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #182969 > unrolled thread

You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!

Started by	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
First post	2026-03-04 12:46 +0000
Last post	2026-04-12 03:25 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 181 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →

#182969 — You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-03-04 12:46 +0000
Subject	You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!
Message-ID	<n0qntoF2nsU1@mid.individual.net>

How To Protect Your Mac From Malware

Learn from Gary!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A

You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules.

Does ANYONE reading hear use AV software, even though it is unnecessary?

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#182970

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-03-04 15:42 +0000
Message-ID	<n0r270F1lcqU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#182969

On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...

*How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
A video by Gary Rosenzweig

Learn from Gary!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A

00:00 Intro
00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
03:20 3. Backup Your Data
04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
08:09 Stay Informed
08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat

What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?

--
FYI .....
https://mastodon.social/@rosenz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182990

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-03-05 20:54 +0000
Message-ID	<n0u8riFh0bcU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#182970

On 04/03/2026 15:42, David B. wrote:
> On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...
> 
> *How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
> A video by Gary Rosenzweig
> 
> Learn from Gary!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
> 
> 00:00 Intro
> 00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
> 02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
> 03:20 3. Backup Your Data
> 04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
> 06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
> 08:09 Stay Informed
> 08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat
> 
> What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?
> 
> --
> FYI .....
> https://mastodon.social/@rosenz


Gary has now responded to a recent comment.

Have you seen that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182998

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-03-06 15:22 +0000
Message-ID	<n109oqFqmcqU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#182990

On 05/03/2026 20:54, David B. wrote:
> On 04/03/2026 15:42, David B. wrote:
>> On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...
>>
>> *How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
>> A video by Gary Rosenzweig
>>
>> Learn from Gary!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
>>
>> 00:00 Intro
>> 00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
>> 02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
>> 03:20 3. Backup Your Data
>> 04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
>> 06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
>> 08:09 Stay Informed
>> 08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat
>>
>> What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?
>>
>> -- 
>> FYI .....
>> https://mastodon.social/@rosenz
> 
> 
> Gary has now responded to a recent comment.
> 
> Have you seen that?

Gary was asked about this some years ago.

https://macmost.com/?s=EtreCheck

Please review BOTH items!

FWIW, EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple App Store nowadays.

“Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in 
Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations.  Once 
there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for 
malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the 
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this 
manner.
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in 
Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by 
anti-malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple computer?”

Surely /somebody/ can answer the question!

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183083

From	Gremlin <nobody@haph.org>
Date	2026-03-22 06:18 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsB417176BD90C8HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>
In reply to	#182998

"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n109oqFqmcqU1@mid.individual.net
Fri, 06 Mar 2026 15:22:02 GMT in uk.comp.sys.mac, wrote: 

> On 05/03/2026 20:54, David B. wrote:
>> On 04/03/2026 15:42, David B. wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...
>>>
>>> *How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
>>> A video by Gary Rosenzweig
>>>
>>> Learn from Gary!┬  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
>>>
>>> 00:00 Intro
>>> 00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
>>> 02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
>>> 03:20 3. Backup Your Data
>>> 04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
>>> 06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
>>> 08:09 Stay Informed
>>> 08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat
>>>
>>> What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> FYI .....
>>> https://mastodon.social/@rosenz
>> 
>> 
>> Gary has now responded to a recent comment.
>> 
>> Have you seen that?
> 
> Gary was asked about this some years ago.
> 
> https://macmost.com/?s=EtreCheck
> 
> Please review BOTH items!
> 
> FWIW, EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple App Store nowadays.
> 
> тАЬMost software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in 
> Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations.  Once 
> there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for 
> malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the 
> Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this 
> manner.
> EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in 
> Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by 
> anti-malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple
> computer?тАЭ 
> 
> Surely /somebody/ can answer the question!

Thanks to your known and established reputation as a dishonest as fucking
possible troll. A troll who has a personal issue of his own making with
the author of etrecheck - which is why you continue to slime it with posts
like the one I'm responding to - so works very hard to infer that the
software is malicious or could be hiding malicious code with the intention
of taking over your computer.

David, I took the liberty of forwarding a complete copy of our email 
correspondence. I also included some usenet links he could reach via google 
and MIDs of specific posts if he knew how to use them. When I shared my 
simple right click lookup script, I emailed them a copy and explained how to 
use it.

When you go and create new posts like this one, obviously with the intention 
of slime, I pass along copies to him. He's never asked me to do any of this. 
He didn't need to do so. I don't mind keeping tabs on you and keeping him 
aware of your activities.

I rarely agree with anything Snit has to write - because it's usually self 
grandifying and dishonest on his part. However, he has been very forward and 
honest with you concerning John specifically as well as Etrecheck. He's 
politely told you several times that what you're doing is wrong, that you 
haven't proven a single negative thing you've written, AND, you're causing 
potential harm to the individual and his small company. Snit (of all people) 
has repeatedly told you that this crusade of yours is wrong and you should 
not be engaging in it.

Nobody who posts to alt.computer.workshop has agreed with your actions 
towards the author or etrecheck. Why won't you stop? The program is 
legitimate, it doesn't give the author full access to your computer - Why do 
you continue claiming otherwise with no evidence of any kind to support the 
accusation?

His payment front end should be applying a filter so that you cannot 
purchase a license for it, again. Instead, that filter should be installed 
and a full refund issued to you. No request on your part for this should be 
necessary. The filter should be able to prevent you from purchasing another 
license. 

As a proprieter here, I would have been able to recoup my transation losses 
starting the second time. It would have been deducted directly from the 
account associated with the card you used to make the purchases. You would 
have been flagged as a repeat offender on a list very close to the list 
maintained on others who buy things and then issue a return 24 hours or less 
later.

In simpler terms, the payment processor I use would deduct the fees they 
normally give me from your debit/credit card and it would be legal. I don't 
know if that's an option in your country but I do think John should look 
into legal and financial options at this point. The next email I sent I will 
make those suggestions. It's very clear that asking you to stop, multiple 
people (one of which is supposed to be your friend here) asking you to stop 
isn't going to work. Instead. if you're held to financial accountability you 
might reconsider such activities in the future - after you've paid that is.

How many times do you need to be told that the software is clean before
you grasp the concept? There's nothing malicious about the program.
Nothing malicious about it's author, either. Stop stalking the individual
and sliming his product as you're doing here in yet another newsgroup. 

Imo, instead of ignoring you as he has - he should be consulting with a
lawyer about what to do with you. AFter he looks into his card processor 
options. They don't like doing purchase/refund routines to punish a company 
either. And, they have been known to extract penalty funds from the consumer 
intent on doing it.

It hasn't been simply venting or a
matter of banter back in forth for quite sometime now. The author needs to
clearly understand that your intentions are negative in nature. That you
mean his company financial harm. All because you couldn't get him to
entertain your off the wall Questions and Answers emails. 

David, I know i'm repeating what you've already been told (again many
times now) - If you don't like the software - don't use it. If you don't
trust the software...Don't use it. Please stop making unfounded
accusations concerning the software and it's author. It's beyond tiresome.
Very dishonest on your part too. 

I am pleased to see that nobody has taken the time to respond to a single
post of yours in this thread. At the time I wrote this. 
I'm the first one to do so and I'm calling you out for the vile shit things
you're doing. Yay! 

-- 
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183094

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-03-22 20:51 +0000
Message-ID	<69c05651$0$27$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183083

On Mar 21, 2026 at 11:18:08 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB417176BD90C8HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69c05637-d098-800c-b357-4d53af777d70

Gremlin’s reply is almost entirely ad hominem and escalation, with no real
technical content. The concern about a non-installed tool being unscannable is
based on a false premise — macOS apps can be scanned and verified regardless
of “installation” status. Claims about payment processors and legal remedies
are exaggerated or incorrect. The only worthwhile part of the thread is the
original question about how such tools are vetted; the rest is noise.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183095

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-03-22 23:36 +0000
Message-ID	<n2bco9Fjoa8U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183083

On 22/03/2026 06:18, Gremlin wrote:
> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n109oqFqmcqU1@mid.individual.net
> Fri, 06 Mar 2026 15:22:02 GMT in uk.comp.sys.mac, wrote:
> 
>> On 05/03/2026 20:54, David B. wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2026 15:42, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...
>>>>
>>>> *How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
>>>> A video by Gary Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>> Learn from Gary!┬  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
>>>>
>>>> 00:00 Intro
>>>> 00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
>>>> 02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
>>>> 03:20 3. Backup Your Data
>>>> 04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
>>>> 06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
>>>> 08:09 Stay Informed
>>>> 08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat
>>>>
>>>> What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> FYI .....
>>>> https://mastodon.social/@rosenz
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary has now responded to a recent comment.
>>>
>>> Have you seen that?
>>
>> Gary was asked about this some years ago.
>>
>> https://macmost.com/?s=EtreCheck
>>
>> Please review BOTH items!
>>
>> FWIW, EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple App Store nowadays.
>>
>> тАЬMost software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in
>> Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations.  Once
>> there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for
>> malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
>> Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this
>> manner.
>> EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in
>> Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by
>> anti-malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple
>> computer?тАЭ
>>
>> Surely /somebody/ can answer the question!
> 
> Thanks to your known and established reputation as a dishonest as fucking
> possible troll. A troll who has a personal issue of his own making with
> the author of etrecheck - which is why you continue to slime it with posts
> like the one I'm responding to - so works very hard to infer that the
> software is malicious or could be hiding malicious code with the intention
> of taking over your computer.
> 
> David, I took the liberty of forwarding a complete copy of our email
> correspondence. I also included some usenet links he could reach via google
> and MIDs of specific posts if he knew how to use them. When I shared my
> simple right click lookup script, I emailed them a copy and explained how to
> use it.
> 
> When you go and create new posts like this one, obviously with the intention
> of slime, I pass along copies to him. He's never asked me to do any of this.
> He didn't need to do so. I don't mind keeping tabs on you and keeping him
> aware of your activities.
> 
> I rarely agree with anything Snit has to write - because it's usually self
> grandifying and dishonest on his part. However, he has been very forward and
> honest with you concerning John specifically as well as Etrecheck. He's
> politely told you several times that what you're doing is wrong, that you
> haven't proven a single negative thing you've written, AND, you're causing
> potential harm to the individual and his small company. Snit (of all people)
> has repeatedly told you that this crusade of yours is wrong and you should
> not be engaging in it.
> 
> Nobody who posts to alt.computer.workshop has agreed with your actions
> towards the author or etrecheck. Why won't you stop? The program is
> legitimate, it doesn't give the author full access to your computer - Why do
> you continue claiming otherwise with no evidence of any kind to support the
> accusation?
> 
> His payment front end should be applying a filter so that you cannot
> purchase a license for it, again. Instead, that filter should be installed
> and a full refund issued to you. No request on your part for this should be
> necessary. The filter should be able to prevent you from purchasing another
> license.
> 
> As a proprieter here, I would have been able to recoup my transation losses
> starting the second time. It would have been deducted directly from the
> account associated with the card you used to make the purchases. You would
> have been flagged as a repeat offender on a list very close to the list
> maintained on others who buy things and then issue a return 24 hours or less
> later.
> 
> In simpler terms, the payment processor I use would deduct the fees they
> normally give me from your debit/credit card and it would be legal. I don't
> know if that's an option in your country but I do think John should look
> into legal and financial options at this point. The next email I sent I will
> make those suggestions. It's very clear that asking you to stop, multiple
> people (one of which is supposed to be your friend here) asking you to stop
> isn't going to work. Instead. if you're held to financial accountability you
> might reconsider such activities in the future - after you've paid that is.
> 
> 
> How many times do you need to be told that the software is clean before
> you grasp the concept? There's nothing malicious about the program.
> Nothing malicious about it's author, either. Stop stalking the individual
> and sliming his product as you're doing here in yet another newsgroup.
> 
> Imo, instead of ignoring you as he has - he should be consulting with a
> lawyer about what to do with you. AFter he looks into his card processor
> options. They don't like doing purchase/refund routines to punish a company
> either. And, they have been known to extract penalty funds from the consumer
> intent on doing it.
> 
> It hasn't been simply venting or a
> matter of banter back in forth for quite sometime now. The author needs to
> clearly understand that your intentions are negative in nature. That you
> mean his company financial harm. All because you couldn't get him to
> entertain your off the wall Questions and Answers emails.
> 
> David, I know i'm repeating what you've already been told (again many
> times now) - If you don't like the software - don't use it. If you don't
> trust the software...Don't use it. Please stop making unfounded
> accusations concerning the software and it's author. It's beyond tiresome.
> Very dishonest on your part too.
> 
> I am pleased to see that nobody has taken the time to respond to a single
> post of yours in this thread. At the time I wrote this.
> I'm the first one to do so and I'm calling you out for the vile shit things
> you're doing. Yay!


Thank you for all you have done to help protect the author of EtreCheck.

I've discovered that it is a really useful tool after all, especially
when moving all my data from one iMac to another this last week.

Have you not been surprised that the purchase price of EtreCheck has not
changed a dime since first day it was launched? It's a small price to
pay for the extra insight it provides.

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183281

From	Gremlin <nobody@haph.org>
Date	2026-04-10 07:50 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsB42A271D5D77FHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>
In reply to	#183095

"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n2bco9Fjoa8U1@mid.individual.net
Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:36:41 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> Thank you for all you have done to help protect the author of EtreCheck.

I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any 
help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. You 
are well known in AV/AM circles David. A bothersome troll with a drinking 
problem for the most part. Your tendency of trying to stalk people and 
companies is also well known in those circles. It's also known outside of 
them. 

I've heard a story from a couple of people now about a legal representative 
that will be making contact with you in the not so distant future. I took 
the liberty of providing them your telephone numbers and residential address 
- just in case they didn't already have such information on file.

I didn't want you to miss their effort to contact you, and, I didn't think 
you'd mind that I shared the information. After all, I made it public 
information some years back. :) Despite your efforts to keep me from doing 
so. 

Speaking of which, how far along is that raiding party? You know, the one 
you promised I'd meet if I went ahead and showed you what an .NFO file was?

I still don't know why you got so upset over that - it was as you often say, 
all in fun. Nothing nefarious was intended. Didn't you find the virtual 
postcards amusing? :)

> I've discovered that it is a really useful tool after all, especially
> when moving all my data from one iMac to another this last week.

It's almost scary how arrogant yet so dumb concerning IT you are. You and 
snit are poster children for birth control, David. Fucking poster children. 
His mom should have made an effort to drink a bit more everyday when she 
learned she was prego with fucktardo. The outcome could have saved us and 
many before us a lot of time and aggrivation. Imagine - he doesn't exist so 
can't become a welfare leeching usenet troll with problems that can't be 
resolved with a few couch sessions. He needs long term care in an assisted 
living facility.

Maybe he'll fuckup and run his mouth on usenet or in person to someone who 
isn't physically far from him. Perhaps they will hit him in the jaw just 
right to where it causes a problem with the main computer. In snits case 
though, little effort is required to expose multiple problems with what 
passes for a main computer in his brain. I'm sure he was living well when 
his kids were under age. bonus food stamps (welfare) now he has to accept 
whatever the state will give him.

He is able bodied David. He could work even a shitjob on the books. He'd 
rather not do that. He'd much rather do side jobs for cash under the table 
and let myself and others who work and live in this country continue to pay 
his way.

Here's hoping that someone sues you and takes you to the cleaners. I'll 
gloat about that outcome for years to come. It will bring me great enjoyment 
for years to come to learn/know that you lost everything all nice n legal. 
<G>

-- 
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183283

From	Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-04-10 08:07 +0000
Message-ID	<69d8afad$1$24$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183281

Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> wrote:
> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n2bco9Fjoa8U1@mid.individual.net
> Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:36:41 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 
> 
>> Thank you for all you have done to help protect the author of EtreCheck.
> 
> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any 
> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. You 
> are well known in AV/AM circles David. A bothersome troll with a drinking 
> problem for the most part. Your tendency of trying to stalk people and 
> companies is also well known in those circles. It's also known outside of 
> them. 
> 
> I've heard a story from a couple of people now about a legal representative 
> that will be making contact with you in the not so distant future. I took 
> the liberty of providing them your telephone numbers and residential address 
> - just in case they didn't already have such information on file.
> 
> I didn't want you to miss their effort to contact you, and, I didn't think 
> you'd mind that I shared the information. After all, I made it public 
> information some years back. :) Despite your efforts to keep me from doing 
> so. 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, how far along is that raiding party? You know, the one 
> you promised I'd meet if I went ahead and showed you what an .NFO file was?
> 
> I still don't know why you got so upset over that - it was as you often say, 
> all in fun. Nothing nefarious was intended. Didn't you find the virtual 
> postcards amusing? :)
> 
>> I've discovered that it is a really useful tool after all, especially
>> when moving all my data from one iMac to another this last week.
> 
> It's almost scary how arrogant yet so dumb concerning IT you are. You and 
> snit are poster children for birth control, David. Fucking poster children. 
> His mom should have made an effort to drink a bit more everyday when she 
> learned she was prego with fucktardo. The outcome could have saved us and 
> many before us a lot of time and aggrivation. Imagine - he doesn't exist so 
> can't become a welfare leeching usenet troll with problems that can't be 
> resolved with a few couch sessions. He needs long term care in an assisted 
> living facility.
> 
> Maybe he'll fuckup and run his mouth on usenet or in person to someone who 
> isn't physically far from him. Perhaps they will hit him in the jaw just 
> right to where it causes a problem with the main computer. In snits case 
> though, little effort is required to expose multiple problems with what 
> passes for a main computer in his brain. I'm sure he was living well when 
> his kids were under age. bonus food stamps (welfare) now he has to accept 
> whatever the state will give him.
> 
> He is able bodied David. He could work even a shitjob on the books. He'd 
> rather not do that. He'd much rather do side jobs for cash under the table 
> and let myself and others who work and live in this country continue to pay 
> his way.
> 
> Here's hoping that someone sues you and takes you to the cleaners. I'll 
> gloat about that outcome for years to come. It will bring me great enjoyment 
> for years to come to learn/know that you lost everything all nice n legal. 
> <G>
> 
> 

You lied about telling to relevant legal representatives. 

How pathetic of you. 

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183294

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-04-11 14:27 +0100
Message-ID	<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183281

On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.

Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂

Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.

He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)

=

Hello John,

I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.

I’ve purchased and used EtreCheck extensively while setting up a “new to
me” 27-inch 2019 iMac. As part of that process, I migrated data from
another Mac, so I’m aware there would have been many legacy files
carried across.

I have a question about report handling that I’ve been trying to
understand more precisely.

When I generate a report and select “Don’t keep report”, I still see
files being created or updated under:

~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck

My assumption is that this may reflect internal data structures,
caching, or partial report storage rather than user-facing report
history — but I wanted to confirm.

Would you mind clarifying:

Does EtreCheck still write report data (full or partial) to disk even
when “Don’t keep report” is selected?
Is that option intended only to control whether the report appears in
the app’s history?
Are these files expected to persist across sessions, or are they
intended to be temporary?
I’m not concerned — just trying to properly understand how things work,
especially given the migration from an older system.

Thanks for your time, and for a very useful tool.

Best regards,
David

=

I'd welcome advice on this matter from ANYONE reading here with regard
to whether or not copies of reports should be stored surreptitiously in 
the 'hidden' Library.

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183296

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-04-11 13:50 +0000
Message-ID	<69da5194$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183294

On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
> 
> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
> 
> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
> 
> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)

You know why he does not respond to you!
> 
> =
> 
> Hello John,
> 
> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.

He does. Please leave him alone.

...

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183297

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-04-11 15:21 +0100
Message-ID	<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183296

On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
>>
>> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
>>
>> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
>>
>> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
> 
> You know why he does not respond to you!

He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.

He should honour his part of the deal.

>> =
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.
> 
> He does. Please leave him alone.

Read his Terms of Business!

https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183299

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-04-11 14:58 +0000
Message-ID	<69da61af$2$55442$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183297

On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>>>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
>>> 
>>> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
>>> 
>>> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
>>> 
>>> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
>> 
>> You know why he does not respond to you!
> 
> He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.

Automated system. Please leave him alone.
> 
> He should honour his part of the deal.

You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to
repair.
> 
>>> =
>>> 
>>> Hello John,
>>> 
>>> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.
>> 
>> He does. Please leave him alone.
> 
> Read his Terms of Business!
> 
> https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html

There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183303

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-04-11 19:50 +0100
Message-ID	<n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183299

On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>> <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>>>>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>>>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
>>>>
>>>> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
>>>>
>>>> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
>>>
>>> You know why he does not respond to you!
>>
>> He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
> 
> Automated system. Please leave him alone.
>>
>> He should honour his part of the deal.
> 
> You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to
> repair.

I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3

>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.
>>>
>>> He does. Please leave him alone.
>>
>> Read his Terms of Business!
>>
>> https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
> 
> There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
> has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.

I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183308

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-04-11 20:25 +0000
Message-ID	<69daae48$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183303

On Apr 11, 2026 at 11:50:17 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>> <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>>>>>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>>>>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
>>>>> 
>>>>> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
>>>> 
>>>> You know why he does not respond to you!
>>> 
>>> He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
>> 
>> Automated system. Please leave him alone.
>>> 
>>> He should honour his part of the deal.
>> 
>> You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to
>> repair.
> 
> I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!

But you made them in the past. You broke the deal. He is under no obligation
to give you another chance.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3
> 
>>>>> Hello John,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.
>>>> 
>>>> He does. Please leave him alone.
>>> 
>>> Read his Terms of Business!
>>> 
>>> https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
>> 
>> There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
>> has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.
> 
> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)

Automated system.


-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183310

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-04-11 22:33 +0100
Message-ID	<n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183308

On 11/04/2026 21:25, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2026 at 11:50:17 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>> <n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>>> <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>>>>>>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>>>>>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
>>>>>
>>>>> You know why he does not respond to you!
>>>>
>>>> He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
>>>
>>> Automated system. Please leave him alone.
>>>>
>>>> He should honour his part of the deal.
>>>
>>> You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to
>>> repair.
>>
>> I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!
> 
> But you made them in the past. You broke the deal. He is under no obligation
> to give you another chance.

You may think that. I think you are wrong.

>> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3
>>
>>>>>> Hello John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> He does. Please leave him alone.
>>>>
>>>> Read his Terms of Business!
>>>>
>>>> https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
>>>
>>> There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
>>> has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.
>>
>> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
> 
> Automated system.

Indeed it is. He could send my money back and cancel my license - but he 
has not done so. IMO he should respond to my query.

Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?

~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck

Do tell. Thanks.

-- 
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183313

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-04-12 00:09 +0000
Message-ID	<69dae2b1$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183310

On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 11/04/2026 21:25, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 11:50:17 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>> <n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>>>> <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
>>>>>>>> I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
>>>>>>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, that *IS* good to hear! 🙂
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You know why he does not respond to you!
>>>>> 
>>>>> He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
>>>> 
>>>> Automated system. Please leave him alone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> He should honour his part of the deal.
>>>> 
>>>> You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to
>>>> repair.
>>> 
>>> I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!
>> 
>> But you made them in the past. You broke the deal. He is under no obligation
>> to give you another chance.
> 
> You may think that. I think you are wrong.
> 
>>> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3
>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello John,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch directly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> He does. Please leave him alone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Read his Terms of Business!
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
>>>> 
>>>> There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
>>>> has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.
>>> 
>>> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
>> 
>> Automated system.
> 
> Indeed it is. He could send my money back and cancel my license - but he
> has not done so. IMO he should respond to my query.

I disagree with your opinion. Refunding your money would make sense but that
would mean interacting with you. He clearly does not want that.

> Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
> 
> ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
> 
> Do tell. Thanks.

I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183339 — Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!)

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-04-12 15:49 +0100
Subject	Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!)
Message-ID	<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183313

On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
> On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38 PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.
> <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
[....]
>> Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
>>
>> ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
>>
>> Do tell. Thanks.
> 
> I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
> hidden ones too! :)

Thank you for confirming that, Brock! 🙂

As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
	..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.

Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS* 
shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?

OK

Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"

Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!

If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck

Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes'
should you want to.

Then delete the EtreCheck report.

When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a 
copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.

All straight-forward!

Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"

Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?

If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!

Please advise.

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183341 — Re: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!) (was: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!))

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-04-12 15:11 +0000
Subject	Re: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!) (was: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!))
Message-ID	<69dbb609$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183339

On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38 PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.
>> <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
> [....]
>>> Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
>>> 
>>> ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
>>> 
>>> Do tell. Thanks.
>> 
>> I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
>> hidden ones too! :)
> 
> Thank you for confirming that, Brock! 🙂

Sure.
> 
> As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
>     ..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.

Nor is thee any need.
> 
> Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS*
> shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?

And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options

There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home
folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option.

But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need
to go into.
> 
> OK
> 
> Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
> 
> Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!

If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
But I would expect them to be gone.

> If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck

I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so
why would you advise people to do this?
> 
> Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes'
> should you want to.
> 
> Then delete the EtreCheck report.
> 
> When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a
> copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
> 
> All straight-forward!
> 
> Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
> 
> Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?
> 
> If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
> 
> Please advise.

Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.


-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183343 — Re: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!)

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-04-12 16:27 +0100
Subject	Re: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!)
Message-ID	<n41rvcFev6eU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183341

On 12/04/2026 16:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
>>> On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38 PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.
>>> <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> [....]
>>>> Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
>>>>
>>>> ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
>>>>
>>>> Do tell. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
>>> hidden ones too! :)
>>
>> Thank you for confirming that, Brock! 🙂
> 
> Sure.
>>
>> As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
>>      ..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
> 
> Nor is thee any need.
>>
>> Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS*
>> shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
> 
> And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
> Options
> 
> There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home
> folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option.
> 
> But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need
> to go into.

That is a fair point regarding the View Options; it’s certainly a more
permanent way to keep the folder visible for those who need frequent
access to ~/Library.

>> OK
>>
>> Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
>>
>> Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
> 
> If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.

Have you raised this wit the developer of Usenapp?

> But I would expect them to be gone.

Pssst - they will be! ;-)

>> If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck
> 
> I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so
> why would you advise people to do this?

Simply to establish the truth.

>> Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes'
>> should you want to.
>>
>> Then delete the EtreCheck report.
>>
>> When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a
>> copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
>>
>> All straight-forward!
>>
>> Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
>>
>> Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?
>>
>> If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
>>
>> Please advise.
> 
> Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.

The reason I suggest this specific sequence is to highlight a matter of
user agency and data persistence.

If a user explicitly selects an option not to save a report, and then
manually empties the Bin, one would logically expect that data to be
gone. The discovery that EtreCheck may be silently archiving these
reports in ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck regardless of the
user's "do not save" preference is a technical observation worth noting.
It isn't about whether one "trusts" the diagnostic capabilities of the
tool, but rather how the software handles (or retains) user data behind
the scenes.

The focus is currently there because it serves as a primary example of
how "helper" utilities interact with the macOS filesystem in ways that
aren't always transparent to the average user.

If you do eventually decide to check that directory after a run, I’d be
interested to hear if your findings match what I’ve observed regarding
those "unsaved" reports reappearing.

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →

csiph-web

You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!

Contents

#182969 — You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!

#182970

#182990

#182998

#183083

#183094

#183095

#183281

#183283

#183294

#183296

#183297

#183299

#183303

#183308

#183310

#183313

#183339 — Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!)

#183341 — Re: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!) (was: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!))

#183343 — Re: Today's challenge! 😈 (Was - You can protec t your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!)