On Thu, 04 May 2023 17:40:05 -0400, you wrote:
>
> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 4 May 2023 18:02:50 +0200 (CEST),
> MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
>
> >In article <u2vh24$4v8c$1@solani.org>
> >Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 04.05.23 um 02:11 schrieb MaxT@NewsPosts.org:
> >> > Since I posted, I found that my wife can see the headers when she
> >> > uses the Reply: item. However, if the e-mail is malware, opening it
> >> > can automatically infect one's phone. That's why I'm wondering if
> >> > the real Path of the sender can be shown without opening the e-mail
> >> > body.
> >> >
> >> > The absolute main method of malware infections, personal or business
> >> > ones, is through phishing. As once said, curiosity killed the cat.
> >>
> >> The best is definitely to analyze the mails in a client on the PC/Mac.
> >> There all the needed options exist. Very easy when IMAP is used.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)
> >
> >There's no way my wife is going to 'analyze* mail by any means,
>
> BTW, I'm no guru but I do a lot more looking than I think your wife does
> and yet I wouldn't know how to use headers to determine w hich email has
> malware and which doesn't

It's not about knowing a malware infected call from a safe call.
It's about receiving phone calls from some strangers she never met.
It's also about phoney calls pretending to come from your bank asking
you to verify information regarding your bank account.. Those are
easily spotted because the path shows that it did not come from xyz
bank in your town when the path shows www.//xyz.bank.al. That's from
albania. There is no reason to click on e-mails such as that.

> >especially with stuff like IMAP. That's why I just would like
> >headers showing on her phone. She rarely uses her desktop or laptop.
> >She lives by Smart phone only.
>
> Well, I think that means she should back up her contacts, texts, emails,
> everything, on a regular basis, maybe automatically if that's possible
> and be prepared to reset the phone*** if there is ever malware that her
> av program** doesn't stop.

> **She does have an AV app on the phone, right. I think I use AVG free.

She tells me that all her contacts and whatever are backed up to
Google. She uses some Google app for all this. Her phone has burped,
losing it's software a few times over the past years. She always got
it back from the Google backup.

All I know about this is what she tells me. I know nothing about
using those dang Smart buggers.

She has no AV on her phone. She feels it is more of a bother than
it's worth. I don't want to get into my thoughts also regarding
those intrusive, dishonest outfits, but here is just one article on
the subject posted when Avast bought AVG.

The Cost of Avast's Free Antivirus: Companies Can Spy on Your Clicks
https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-cost-of-avasts-free-antivirus-
companies-can-spy-on-your-clicks

None of our home laptops nor desktops have had AVs on them for years.
They're a pain in the arse with their intruding and screwing around
with warnings about some perfectly good programs. Then there is the
subject of their spyware crap. Not all are guilty of spyware, but
they all are a pain and no where near as effective for protection as
those liar outfits tell you. I have read article after article by
pro security experts on this subject.

Instead of an AV program, we use a program called TimeFreeze by
ToolWiz, a freebie which when loaded with Windows boot protects the
C: by not writing anything to the disk. On each boot, the past
session no longer exists and you start afresh. If we do want to save
something, we check it first with VirusTotal, then load it to an
external drive or USB stick. This has worked for us for quite a few
years. Also, many new downloaded programs do not need a reboot to
work. TimeFreeze allows us to use those programs for a session to see
if they're worth keeping. If we don't like them, they're gone with a
reboot. You do have to reboot without TimeFreeze running in order to
keep any new stuff, but that's no big deal.

Then there is the matter of the cost these days of those AV programs
each year. Forget them. We feel we don't need them. However, for our
desktops and laptops we do use a simple software firewall to keep
many programs from calling home.

There is no way to totally protect your computer from malware. You
gotta find what works for you within the limits of the safety you'll
settle for.

>
> ***or buy a new one, but afaik there is never a reason not to just reset
> the phone and reinstall all the old files.

As I pretty much said, everyone has to make their own choices in the
matter. It all depends on what you can live with if things go south.

On 2023-05-05 02:31, MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2023 17:40:05 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 4 May 2023 18:02:50 +0200 (CEST),
>> MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:

....

>> **She does have an AV app on the phone, right. I think I use AVG free.
>
> She tells me that all her contacts and whatever are backed up to
> Google. She uses some Google app for all this. Her phone has burped,
> losing it's software a few times over the past years. She always got
> it back from the Google backup.
>
> All I know about this is what she tells me. I know nothing about
> using those dang Smart buggers.
>
> She has no AV on her phone. She feels it is more of a bother than
> it's worth. I don't want to get into my thoughts also regarding
> those intrusive, dishonest outfits, but here is just one article on
> the subject posted when Avast bought AVG.

AV in a phone doesn't work.

I'll copy a post from somebody else on the issue:

+++-----------
From: Andy Burns <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:29:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Malware antivirus
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10

....

AV on android is smoke and mirrors ... no process (without rooting your
device) is allowed to look at another process's files, so how does an AV
scanner look for infected files on your android device?

Hint: it doesn't.

It just asks android what apps you have installed, then they refer back
to a copy of that app at anti-virus-HQ and if their files aren't
infected, they assume yours aren't either ...

-----------++-

Now then, gmail will not let it pass a mail infected with a known virus.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <ol3eijx842.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 2023-05-05 02:31, MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 May 2023 17:40:05 -0400, you wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 4 May 2023 18:02:50 +0200 (CEST),
> >> MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> **She does have an AV app on the phone, right. I think I use AVG free.
> >
> > She tells me that all her contacts and whatever are backed up to
> > Google. She uses some Google app for all this. Her phone has burped,
> > losing it's software a few times over the past years. She always got
> > it back from the Google backup.
> >
> > All I know about this is what she tells me. I know nothing about
> > using those dang Smart buggers.
> >
> > She has no AV on her phone. She feels it is more of a bother than
> > it's worth. I don't want to get into my thoughts also regarding
> > those intrusive, dishonest outfits, but here is just one article on
> > the subject posted when Avast bought AVG.
>
> AV in a phone doesn't work.
>
> I'll copy a post from somebody else on the issue:

Like I told you earlier, I don't know squat about Smart phones. To
me, a phone should be just a phone, not a perplexing pocket computer.

>
> --
> Cheers, Carlos.

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 5 May 2023 02:31:14 +0200 (CEST),
MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:

>On Thu, 04 May 2023 17:40:05 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 4 May 2023 18:02:50 +0200 (CEST),
>> MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
>>
>> >In article <u2vh24$4v8c$1@solani.org>
>> >Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Am 04.05.23 um 02:11 schrieb MaxT@NewsPosts.org:
>> >> > Since I posted, I found that my wife can see the headers when she
>> >> > uses the Reply: item. However, if the e-mail is malware, opening it
>> >> > can automatically infect one's phone. That's why I'm wondering if
>> >> > the real Path of the sender can be shown without opening the e-mail
>> >> > body.
>> >> >
>> >> > The absolute main method of malware infections, personal or business
>> >> > ones, is through phishing. As once said, curiosity killed the cat.
>> >>
>> >> The best is definitely to analyze the mails in a client on the PC/Mac.
>> >> There all the needed options exist. Very easy when IMAP is used.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)
>> >
>> >There's no way my wife is going to 'analyze* mail by any means,
>>
>> BTW, I'm no guru but I do a lot more looking than I think your wife does
>> and yet I wouldn't know how to use headers to determine w hich email has
>> malware and which doesn't
>
>It's not about knowing a malware infected call from a safe call.
>It's about receiving phone calls from some strangers she never met.

The subject line and the original post was about email headers, headers
of email. After I go to the trouble to answer about that, you say
that's not the problem. Now you're talking about phone calls.

>It's also about phoney calls pretending to come from your bank asking
=====================
>you to verify information regarding your bank account.. Those are

That's easy, and it's the same for landlines, flipphones, and smart
phones. Don't tell them anything.

>easily spotted because the path shows that it did not come from xyz
>bank in your town when the path shows www.//xyz.bank.al. That's from
>albania.

Phone calls don't have paths and don't show urls. They usually have
caller-id which, of course, can be spoofed.

> There is no reason to click on e-mails such as that.

You started this topic 3 sentences ago about phone calls, and now you're
talking about email again.

>
>> >especially with stuff like IMAP. That's why I just would like
>> >headers showing on her phone. She rarely uses her desktop or laptop.
>> >She lives by Smart phone only.
>>
>> Well, I think that means she should back up her contacts, texts, emails,
>> everything, on a regular basis, maybe automatically if that's possible
>> and be prepared to reset the phone*** if there is ever malware that her
>> av program** doesn't stop.
>
>> **She does have an AV app on the phone, right. I think I use AVG free.
>
>She tells me that all her contacts and whatever are backed up to
>Google. She uses some Google app for all this. Her phone has burped,
>losing it's software a few times over the past years. She always got
>it back from the Google backup.

Good.

>All I know about this is what she tells me. I know nothing about
>using those dang Smart buggers.
>
>She has no AV on her phone. She feels it is more of a bother than
>it's worth.

Mine is not a bother at all. I think it updates the definitions
automatically. And it never alerts** because I only retrieve email
once in a while, the same email I get on my computer, and I don't get
malware in either place. If you're really talking about phone calls,
not email, mine never alerts on phone calls because AV programs don't
alert on phone calls. **On, and because I see that on this phone, I
never finished installing AVG. :-)

> I don't want to get into my thoughts also regarding
>those intrusive, dishonest outfits, but here is just one article on
>the subject posted when Avast bought AVG.
>
>The Cost of Avast's Free Antivirus: Companies Can Spy on Your Clicks
>https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-cost-of-avasts-free-antivirus-companies-can-spy-on-your-clicks

This article is dated " Updated January 27, 2020" and the second
paragraph says:

"Editors' Note: In January 2020, we learned about a problem with sharing
of user data between Avast and its subsidiary Jumpshot. Based on this
privacy slip, we knocked this product's rating down one-half star and
removed its Editors’ Choice designation. Avast resolved the problem and
terminated Jumpshot shortly thereafter. We’ve seen no sign of any
inappropriate use of private user data since then, so we’ve taken Avast
out of the penalty box, restoring its star rating and Editors’ Choice
honor."

So the url you posted may have been updated since you first read it. It
seems to be saying the orginal complaint has been fixed and no longer
applies.

>None of our home laptops nor desktops have had AVs on them for years.
>They're a pain in the arse with their intruding and screwing around
>with warnings about some perfectly good programs. Then there is the
>subject of their spyware crap. Not all are guilty of spyware, but
>they all are a pain and no where near as effective for protection as
>those liar outfits tell you. I have read article after article by
>pro security experts on this subject.
>
>Instead of an AV program, we use a program called TimeFreeze by
>ToolWiz, a freebie which when loaded with Windows boot protects the
>C: by not writing anything to the disk. On each boot, the past
>session no longer exists and you start afresh. >If we do want to save
>something, we check it first with VirusTotal, then load it to an
>external drive or USB stick. This has worked for us for quite a few
>years. Also, many new downloaded programs do not need a reboot to
>work. TimeFreeze allows us to use those programs for a session to see
>if they're worth keeping. If we don't like them, they're gone with a
>reboot. You do have to reboot without TimeFreeze running in order to
>keep any new stuff, but that's no big deal.
>
>Then there is the matter of the cost these days of those AV programs
>each year.

I use the free version of AVG. That includes everything it used to but
doesn't include a couple newer things.

> Forget them. We feel we don't need them. However, for our
>desktops and laptops we do use a simple software firewall to keep
>many programs from calling home.

That's built into Windows, isn't it.
>
>There is no way to totally protect your computer from malware. You
>gotta find what works for you within the limits of the safety you'll
>settle for.
>
>>
>> ***or buy a new one, but afaik there is never a reason not to just reset
>> the phone and reinstall all the old files.
>
>As I pretty much said, everyone has to make their own choices in the
>matter. It all depends on what you can live with if things go south.

Am 05.05.23 um 02:31 schrieb MaxT@NewsPosts.org:
> She has no AV on her phone. She feels it is more of a bother than
> it's worth.

She is right. It is snake oil and useless.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In article <mj495itq6cl8vpkhs4al2va84j82c8p8h5@4ax.com>
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
> In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 5 May 2023 02:31:14 +0200 (CEST),
> MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 04 May 2023 17:40:05 -0400, you wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 4 May 2023 18:02:50 +0200 (CEST),
> >> MaxT@NewsPosts.org wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <u2vh24$4v8c$1@solani.org>
> >> >Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Am 04.05.23 um 02:11 schrieb MaxT@NewsPosts.org:
> >> >> > Since I posted, I found that my wife can see the headers when she
> >> >> > uses the Reply: item. However, if the e-mail is malware, opening it
> >> >> > can automatically infect one's phone. That's why I'm wondering if
> >> >> > the real Path of the sender can be shown without opening the e-mail
> >> >> > body.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The absolute main method of malware infections, personal or business
> >> >> > ones, is through phishing. As once said, curiosity killed the cat.
> >> >>
> >> >> The best is definitely to analyze the mails in a client on the PC/Mac.
> >> >> There all the needed options exist. Very easy when IMAP is used.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)
> >> >
> >> >There's no way my wife is going to 'analyze* mail by any means,
> >>
> >> BTW, I'm no guru but I do a lot more looking than I think your wife does
> >> and yet I wouldn't know how to use headers to determine w hich email has
> >> malware and which doesn't
> >
> >It's not about knowing a malware infected call from a safe call.
> >It's about receiving phone calls from some strangers she never met.
>
> The subject line and the original post was about email headers, headers
> of email. After I go to the trouble to answer about that, you say
> that's not the problem. Now you're talking about phone calls.
>
> >It's also about phoney calls pretending to come from your bank asking
> =====================
> >you to verify information regarding your bank account.. Those are
>
> That's easy, and it's the same for landlines, flipphones, and smart
> phones. Don't tell them anything.
>
> >easily spotted because the path shows that it did not come from xyz
> >bank in your town when the path shows www.//xyz.bank.al. That's from
> >albania.
>
> Phone calls don't have paths and don't show urls. They usually have
> caller-id which, of course, can be spoofed.
>
> > There is no reason to click on e-mails such as that.
>
> You started this topic 3 sentences ago about phone calls, and now you're
> talking about email again.

I misspoke. I meant receiving e-mails from unknown senders.

When one is only a little more than a year from 90, misspeaking gets
to be part of life somewhat. : o}

DEL

> > I don't want to get into my thoughts also regarding
> >those intrusive, dishonest outfits, but here is just one article on
> >the subject posted when Avast bought AVG.
> >
> >The Cost of Avast's Free Antivirus: Companies Can Spy on Your Clicks
> >https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-cost-of-avasts-free-antivirus-companies-can-spy-on-your-clicks
>
> This article is dated " Updated January 27, 2020" and the second
> paragraph says:
>
> "Editors' Note: In January 2020, we learned about a problem with sharing
> of user data between Avast and its subsidiary Jumpshot. Based on this
> privacy slip, we knocked this product's rating down one-half star and
> removed its Editors� Choice designation. Avast resolved the problem and
> terminated Jumpshot shortly thereafter. We�ve seen no sign of any
> inappropriate use of private user data since then, so we�ve taken Avast
> out of the penalty box, restoring its star rating and Editors� Choice
> honor."

I believe their first story. I think the threat of scaring off
advertisers changed their mind.

I've read too many other articles from security experts who have very
limited respect for the AV companies and their credibility. However,
almost all of them do say that the average users should use an AV
product. The average users is pretty much a sitting duck without
such defense.

Lastly, my wife has her e-mail contacts all backed up, so even if her
phone lost all the e-mail addys, their recoverable. There is no other
important stuff on her phone. Banking and other important info is
done on our laptops or desktops. And, one other paranoid thing I do
is operate the home network with a fully wired network, no wi-fii.

DEL