On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 16:22:17 +0100, David Brooks
<DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>On 15/06/2023 16:13, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2023-06-15, David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> On 15/06/2023 15:41, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2023-06-15, David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you did - and your computer was compromised - how would you know?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I probably wouldn't, depending upon whether it was trapdoored or
>>>>>>>> backdoored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed - good malware is virtually undetectable!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would probably go online to find some help
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Stop*! Why would you do that? You wouldn't know you /needed/ any help!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true, it depends upon the type of infestation. Malware "does
>>>>>> something" and that something can be detected. Even something like an
>>>>>> occasional beacon can be noticed but not addressed until investigated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that you like to be 'difficult' FromTheRafters - and like to
>>>>> 'prove a point ........ *BUT* ...
>>>>
>>>> (snip the phony the altruistic bullsh*t)
>>>>
>>>> You stalk those devs because you annoyed them and they ignored you...
>>>> it's called narcissistic injury. Here's a question for you and your
>>>> 'friend':
>>>>
>>>> At what point will you accept the fact that your 'stories' don't 'sell'
>>>> in this ng?
>>>
>>> It's solely because I care about wrongdoing that the ACW newsgroup even
>>> exists nowadays!
>>
>> Please. The most sickening aspect of your 'stories' on this is how you
>> link your son to it.
>
>I confess that I do miss him.

Missing a deceased kid is entirely understandable. Using that deceased
kid, in the ugly way that you repeatedly do with the people who
eventually become your stalking/sliming targets, is absolutely horrid.

On 15/06/2023 22:17, FromTheRafters wrote:
> David Brooks wrote on 6/15/2023 :
[....]
>>>>>>>> A question then!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHEN will you run EtreCheck on YOUR Apple computer!
[....]
>>>>>>> When and if I want to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you did - and your computer was compromised - how would you know?
>>>>>
>>>>> I probably wouldn't, depending upon whether it was trapdoored or
>>>>> backdoored.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed - good malware is virtually undetectable!
>>>>
>>>>> I would probably go online to find some help
>>>>
>>>> *Stop*! Why would you do that? You wouldn't know you /needed/ any help!
>>>
>>> Not true, it depends upon the type of infestation. Malware "does
>>> something" and that something can be detected. Even something like an
>>> occasional beacon can be noticed but not addressed until investigated.
>>
>> I know that you like to be 'difficult' FromTheRafters - and like to
>> 'prove a point ........ *BUT* ...
>>
>> If some naive user of an Apple device asks for assistance on the ASC
>> forums and is cajoled into loading and running EtreCheck, they would
>> have absolutely no clue that, afterwards, they should be looking for
>> ANYTHING suspicious.
>
> Why should they?

I've quoted Churchill before! He once said, "Men occasionally stumble
over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if
nothing ever happened."

This quote emphasizes the tendency of people to ignore or overlook
uncomfortable truths instead of investigating further.

>> If their device appears to be working well, that would be the end of
>> the matter.
>
> Yes, but you implied that there *is* something untoward. I replied to
> that as a scenario not as a real life problem. If there *is* some
> malware, it would be doing something and likely be caught doing that
> something when that something is looked for. If it does nothing, it is
> not malware.

So WHO is looking? Malware CAN remain hidden for years. Winston reminded
you of that.

>>> I meant 'what would a hypothetical malware be doing' which would be
>>> detectable.
>>
>> At a guess, stealing money?
>>
>> The pointers?  Etresoft Inc .....
>>
>> No one can visit the business because there isn’t one. It is just a
>> shared office accommodation space where people come and go if the need a
>> business photocopier, a laminater or an electric stapler. He doesn’t
>> even have mail delivered there and he has a PO Box.
>>
>> John Daniel is a 'Will o' the Wisp' character who has lied on
>> LinkedIn, just as his partner in crime has also done.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will-o%27-the-wisp

I will start a new thread as you ignored this!

>> Here's an extract of an email I once sent to Intego...
>>
>> "I've done a bit of research into malware over the last ten years but am
>> no expert! However, I believe that it is possible for malware - which
>> may already be resident within a computer - to 'defend itself' (hide)
>> when a product like yours is installed. This would, of course, give the
>> computer owner a warm, fuzzy, feeling that they are protected when, in
>> reality, the computer is STILL being controlled from an external source.
>>
>> How does Intego combat this possibility?  How CAN the user be absolutely
>> certain that there is no resident malware 'underneath' your AV?"
>>
>> *What answer would YOU give*?
>
> There is no absolute certainty, ever, one must learn to trust no matter
> how many times that trust has been betrayed in the past.

I didn't get a satisfactory answer from Intego either! MY belief is that
if anti-malware is installed on a pristine computer from the get-go, it
has a good chance of catching of catching known malware.

On the other hand, if a computer has been in use for some time and *IS*
infected it could be a total waste of time and effort to install
straight-forward AV software.

Ask Dustin Cook; he'll confirm this I'm sure!

--
David

On 15/06/2023 22:26, FromTheRafters wrote:
> David Brooks explained on 6/15/2023 :
>> On 15/06/2023 17:28, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 15.06.23 um 01:09 schrieb FromTheRafters:
>>
>> [....]
>>>> What specific kind of compromise are we fantasizing about? What does
>>>> the infestation do?
>>>
>>> He got you! Idiot!
>>
>> Sometimes it appears that FTR is not quite as bright as once he was.
>
> Your inability to follow along is not my problem.

True, if that's the case.

>> Additionally, he's been suffering from poor health for many years;
>> maybe I should say 'conditions' 'cause he's not actually ill AFAIK. :-(
>
> Please state what you think I am missing in this conversation. What is
> meant by "He got you!" and how could one be expected to see the unseeable.

I have no idea what the German fellow meant. Ask him! ;-)

On 15/06/2023 22:22, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz explained on 6/15/2023 :
>> Am 15.06.23 um 01:09 schrieb FromTheRafters:
>>> David Brooks laid this down on his screen :
>>>> On 14/06/2023 22:23, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> David Brooks laid this down on his screen :
>>>>>> On 14/06/2023 22:11, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>> David Brooks formulated the question :
>>>>>>>> On 14/06/2023 18:24, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Brooks presented the following explanation :
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/06/2023 14:15, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Brooks used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/06/2023 10:02, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg Lorenz wrote on 6/14/2023 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.06.23 um 21:22 schrieb David Brooks:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/2023 12:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.06.23 um 13:01 schrieb David (BD):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/2023 09:06, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.06.23 um 09:18 schrieb David Brooks:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unsigned Files:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Launchd:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Library/LaunchDaemons/com.symantec.sharedsettings.MES.plist Executable: /Library/Application Support/Symantec/Silo/MES/DomainSettings/SymSharedSettingsd Details: Exact match found in the legitimate list - probably OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The system is compromised*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else reading here agrees with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Symantec files on a Mac or any other computer are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malware-infection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha! Guess what *I* found?!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/88bn2jF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All now gone. :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for helping. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you do that? I'm stunned!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lied to him and he took you seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll refer you to my question posed here:-
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/709959
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the hope that you might comment there yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't - probably didn't read today's comment either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I looked and saw no relevancy to accusing Symantec of writing
>>>>>>>>> malware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The relevancy was to how I FOUND Symantec on my iMac!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you yet had the balls to run EtreCheck on your Apple
>>>>>>>> MacBook Pro?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice try, I haven't responded to that kind of schoolyard taunting
>>>>>>> since, well, since school -- a long time ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What kind of balls does one need to do something so simple and
>>>>>>> easy? Sorry to find out that you think it takes balls to do such
>>>>>>> simple things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A question then!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHEN will you run EtreCheck on YOUR Apple computer!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I WILL*!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3989jHX3sMQ
>>>>>
>>>>> When and if I want to.
>>>>
>>>> If you did - and your computer was compromised - how would you know?
>>>
>>> I probably wouldn't, depending upon whether it was trapdoored or
>>> backdoored. I would probably go online to find some help, and upon
>>> reading even some of your threads I would discover that EtreCheck is
>>> a well respected tool for ferreting out problems even if not related
>>> to malware.
>>>
>>> What specific kind of compromise are we fantasizing about? What does
>>> the infestation do?
>>
>> He got you! Idiot!
>
> How do you figure that? I ask a question and somehow that translates to
> him having gotten me? You don't seem to be following the conversation
> very well.

He gets confused, Rafters. Probably best to ignore him!

--
David

Am 16.06.23 um 09:40 schrieb David Brooks:
> On 15/06/2023 22:17, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Why should they?
>
> I've quoted Churchill before! He once said, "Men occasionally stumble
> over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if
> nothing ever happened."
>
> This quote emphasizes the tendency of people to ignore or overlook
> uncomfortable truths instead of investigating further.

It is a polite way to tell you that you are spreading nonsense.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 16.06.23 um 09:44 schrieb David Brooks:
> I have no idea what the German fellow meant. Ask him! ;-)

You are completely information-resistent.

X-posting not deleted intentionally.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 16/06/2023 09:15, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 16.06.23 um 09:44 schrieb David Brooks:
>> I have no idea what the German fellow meant. Ask him! ;-)
>
> You are completely information-resistent.

Supporting evidence.

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=9212671&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=Etresoft%20Inc&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=

Look up the Directors on LinkedIn

--
David

David Brooks formulated the question :
> On 15/06/2023 22:17, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> David Brooks wrote on 6/15/2023 :
> [....]
>>>>>>>>> A question then!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHEN will you run EtreCheck on YOUR Apple computer!
> [....]
>>>>>>>> When and if I want to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you did - and your computer was compromised - how would you know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I probably wouldn't, depending upon whether it was trapdoored or
>>>>>> backdoored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed - good malware is virtually undetectable!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would probably go online to find some help
>>>>>
>>>>> *Stop*! Why would you do that? You wouldn't know you /needed/ any help!
>>>>
>>>> Not true, it depends upon the type of infestation. Malware "does
>>>> something" and that something can be detected. Even something like an
>>>> occasional beacon can be noticed but not addressed until investigated.
>>>
>>> I know that you like to be 'difficult' FromTheRafters - and like to 'prove
>>> a point ........ *BUT* ...
>>>
>>> If some naive user of an Apple device asks for assistance on the ASC
>>> forums and is cajoled into loading and running EtreCheck, they would
>>> have absolutely no clue that, afterwards, they should be looking for
>>> ANYTHING suspicious.
>>
>> Why should they?
>
> I've quoted Churchill before! He once said, "Men occasionally stumble
> over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if
> nothing ever happened."
>
> This quote emphasizes the tendency of people to ignore or overlook
> uncomfortable truths instead of investigating further.

Why be suspicious when nothing is 'happening' to make you think
something is amiss?

>>> If their device appears to be working well, that would be the end of the
>>> matter.
>>
>> Yes, but you implied that there *is* something untoward. I replied to that
>> as a scenario not as a real life problem. If there *is* some malware, it
>> would be doing something and likely be caught doing that something when
>> that something is looked for. If it does nothing, it is not malware.
>
> So WHO is looking? Malware CAN remain hidden for years. Winston reminded you
> of that.

Did he? What makes you think that I had forgotten what I told you a
decade ago?

>>>> I meant 'what would a hypothetical malware be doing' which would be
>>>> detectable.
>>>
>>> At a guess, stealing money?

Without being noticed?

[...]

> I will start a new thread as you ignored this!

Ignored what?

>>> Here's an extract of an email I once sent to Intego...
>>>
>>> "I've done a bit of research into malware over the last ten years but am
>>> no expert! However, I believe that it is possible for malware - which
>>> may already be resident within a computer - to 'defend itself' (hide)
>>> when a product like yours is installed. This would, of course, give the
>>> computer owner a warm, fuzzy, feeling that they are protected when, in
>>> reality, the computer is STILL being controlled from an external source.
>>>
>>> How does Intego combat this possibility?  How CAN the user be absolutely
>>> certain that there is no resident malware 'underneath' your AV?"
>>>
>>> *What answer would YOU give*?
>>
>> There is no absolute certainty, ever, one must learn to trust no matter how
>> many times that trust has been betrayed in the past.
>
> I didn't get a satisfactory answer from Intego either!

Your paranoia is your cross.

> MY belief is that
> if anti-malware is installed on a pristine computer from the get-go, it
> has a good chance of catching of catching known malware.

Indeed, but you ignore trapdoors.

> On the other hand, if a computer has been in use for some time and *IS*
> infected it could be a total waste of time and effort to install
> straight-forward AV software.

Could be, yes, if it is one of the more sophisticated malware examples
it could hide from some naive AV/AM examples.

It happens that David Brooks formulated :
> On 15/06/2023 22:26, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> David Brooks explained on 6/15/2023 :
>>> On 15/06/2023 17:28, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 15.06.23 um 01:09 schrieb FromTheRafters:
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>>> What specific kind of compromise are we fantasizing about? What does
>>>>> the infestation do?
>>>>
>>>> He got you! Idiot!
>>>
>>> Sometimes it appears that FTR is not quite as bright as once he was.
>>
>> Your inability to follow along is not my problem.
>
> True, if that's the case.
>
>>> Additionally, he's been suffering from poor health for many years; maybe I
>>> should say 'conditions' 'cause he's not actually ill AFAIK. :-(

My 'conditions' are being watched. I have added another doctor to my
collection, a vascular surgeon.

>> Please state what you think I am missing in this conversation. What is
>> meant by "He got you!" and how could one be expected to see the unseeable.
>
> I have no idea what the German fellow meant. Ask him! ;-)

You tacitly agreed with him by denigrating me in response to his
'idiot' allegation.