Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145786 > unrolled thread

Searchmine

Started byTim <timstreater@greenbee.net>
First post2020-07-23 20:27 +0000
Last post2020-07-29 15:55 +0000
Articles 9 — 6 participants

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

Contents

  Searchmine Tim <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2020-07-23 20:27 +0000
    Re: Searchmine nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-23 16:37 -0400
      Re: Searchmine Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-23 22:25 +0100
        Re: Searchmine Martin S Taylor <correspondence@mRaErMtOiVnEsTtHaIySlor.com> - 2020-07-28 15:55 +0100
          Re: Searchmine Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-28 15:27 +0000
          Re: Searchmine nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-28 12:19 -0400
            Re: Searchmine John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2020-07-29 08:45 +0000
              Re: Searchmine nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-29 10:11 -0400
                Re: Searchmine John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2020-07-29 15:55 +0000

#145786 — Searchmine

FromTim <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date2020-07-23 20:27 +0000
SubjectSearchmine
Message-ID<hnua64FsbrpU1@mid.individual.net>
SWMBO got searchmined again but I found an odd Safari extension which I got
rid of. Not sure how she manages it but she does go to a number of ancestry
type websites.

I did add such as:

127.0.0.1 searchmine.net

to the hosts file and restsrted, but that didn't help til I removed the
extnsion.

What is a reliable site for info about this stuff. No sense in me going to
arseholes.net to download an anti-viral, now is there?

-- 
Tim

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#145789

Fromnospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date2020-07-23 16:37 -0400
Message-ID<230720201637139007%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to#145786
In article <hnua64FsbrpU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> SWMBO got searchmined again but I found an odd Safari extension which I got
> rid of. Not sure how she manages it but she does go to a number of ancestry
> type websites.
> 
> I did add such as:
> 
> 127.0.0.1 searchmine.net
> 
> to the hosts file and restsrted, but that didn't help til I removed the
> extnsion.
> 
> What is a reliable site for info about this stuff. No sense in me going to
> arseholes.net to download an anti-viral, now is there?

the easiest is install a content blocker.

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

#145793

FromIan McCall <ian@eruvia.org>
Date2020-07-23 22:25 +0100
Message-ID<0001HW.24CA37C301952F0B70000D81138F@news.individual.net>
In reply to#145789
On 23 Jul 2020, nospam wrote
(in article<230720201637139007%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<hnua64FsbrpU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim
> <timstreater@greenbee.net>  wrote:
>
> > SWMBO got searchmined again but I found an odd Safari extension which I got
> > rid of. Not sure how she manages it but she does go to a number of ancestry
> > type websites.
> >
> > I did add such as:
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 searchmine.net
> >
> > to the hosts file and restsrted, but that didn't help til I removed the
> > extnsion.
> >
> > What is a reliable site for info about this stuff. No sense in me going to
> > arseholes.net to download an anti-viral, now is there?
>
> the easiest is install a content blocker.

Agreed on the content blocker for prevention, but Malwarebytes for info.

Cheers,
Ian

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

#145932

FromMartin S Taylor <correspondence@mRaErMtOiVnEsTtHaIySlor.com>
Date2020-07-28 15:55 +0100
Message-ID<0001HW.24D073D7013803D270000DCB12EF@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#145793
On Jul 23, 2020, Ian McCall wrote
(in article<0001HW.24CA37C301952F0B70000D81138F@news.individual.net>):

> Agreed on the content blocker for prevention, but Malwarebytes for info.

Are we agreed that Malwarebytes is:

a) the best malware protection available for Macs;

b) worth installing; and

c) safe to install. (I'm surprised they don't offer a SHA checksum.)

MST

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

#145933

FromJaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org>
Date2020-07-28 15:27 +0000
Message-ID<hoauf8FltmuU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#145932
On 28 Jul 2020 at 15:55:19 BST, "Martin S Taylor"
<correspondence@mRaErMtOiVnEsTtHaIySlor.com> wrote:

> On Jul 23, 2020, Ian McCall wrote
> (in article<0001HW.24CA37C301952F0B70000D81138F@news.individual.net>):
> 
>> Agreed on the content blocker for prevention, but Malwarebytes for info.
> 
> Are we agreed that Malwarebytes is:
> 
> a) the best malware protection available for Macs;
> 
> b) worth installing; and
> 
> c) safe to install. (I'm surprised they don't offer a SHA checksum.)

Yep.

Ref checksums, all apps have to be signed and/or notarised now so the
executable is covered anyway.

	Cheers - Jaimie

-- 
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so 
long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see 
the ones which open for us.              - Alexander Graham Bell

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

#145934

Fromnospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date2020-07-28 12:19 -0400
Message-ID<280720201219040851%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to#145932
In article
<0001HW.24D073D7013803D270000DCB12EF@news.eternal-september.org>,
Martin S Taylor <correspondence@mRaErMtOiVnEsTtHaIySlor.com> wrote:

> Are we agreed that Malwarebytes is:

no

> a) the best malware protection available for Macs;
> 
> b) worth installing; and
> 
> c) safe to install. (I'm surprised they don't offer a SHA checksum.)

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

#145957

FromJohn Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2020-07-29 08:45 +0000
Message-ID<rfrcv6$l6i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#145934
On 28 Jul 2020 at 17:19:04 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <0001HW.24D073D7013803D270000DCB12EF@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Martin S Taylor <correspondence@mRaErMtOiVnEsTtHaIySlor.com> wrote:
> 
>> Are we agreed that Malwarebytes is:
> 
> no
> 
>> a) the best malware protection available for Macs;
>> 
>> b) worth installing; and
>> 
>> c) safe to install. (I'm surprised they don't offer a SHA checksum.)

Was this posting somehow incomplete?

J.

-- 
Today is the Tomorrow we worried about yesterday, and all is well.

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

#145962

Fromnospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date2020-07-29 10:11 -0400
Message-ID<290720201011112772%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to#145957
In article <rfrcv6$l6i$1@dont-email.me>, John Hill
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Are we agreed that Malwarebytes is:
> > 
> > no
> > 
> >> a) the best malware protection available for Macs;
> >> 
> >> b) worth installing; and
> >> 
> >> c) safe to install. (I'm surprised they don't offer a SHA checksum.)
> 
> Was this posting somehow incomplete?

no.

the question was 'are we agreed...' and the answer is no.

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

#145963

FromJohn Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2020-07-29 15:55 +0000
Message-ID<rfs65u$t19$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#145962
On 29 Jul 2020 at 15:11:11 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <rfrcv6$l6i$1@dont-email.me>, John Hill
> <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>>> Are we agreed that Malwarebytes is:
>>> 
>>> no
>>> 
>>>> a) the best malware protection available for Macs;
>>>> 
>>>> b) worth installing; and
>>>> 
>>>> c) safe to install. (I'm surprised they don't offer a SHA checksum.)
>> 
>> Was this posting somehow incomplete?
> 
> no.
> 
> the question was 'are we agreed...' and the answer is no.

Ah, fair enough.

Rather like the perfect answer to a parliamentary question in the story about
the lost civil servant, short, to the point and conveys no useful information
whatsoever.

J.

-- 
Say less than you know, have more than you show.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web