Scripts - can anyone here understand what this one might 'do'?

On 16/05/2018 16:15, Auric__ wrote:
David B. wrote:

On 15/05/2018 17:26, Auric__ wrote:
David B. wrote:
[snip]
Personally, I would leave this script where you found it, as-is. It
doesn't do anything bothersome, and for all you know, something
important might miss it.

*Too late now*!

As long as the system is booting, it's not too late.

That's what I think too! ;-)

but although I deleted the item found by 'KnockKnock'
I STILL have the rc.common file on my machine!

It's possible that something in the system recreates it if it's deleted. But
since you have the entire contents of the script already (in your post on
bleepingcomputer), you could always recreate it using that.

I also enquired he

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topi...k-my-question/

I've sent a private message to 'treed' - he's the Apple man who
developed the software purchased by Malwarebytes for scanning Mac
computers. He should know if anyone does!

I have that file on both my MacBook (El Capitan, 10.11) and my iMac (Snow
Leopard, 10.6). I didn't create either copy; I assume it was installed with
the system.

Have you tried KnockKnock? If so, with what result? I'm 99.99% certain
that it will not harm your computers.

https://objective-see.com/products/knockknock.html

[snip]
I'm not trying to become a 'techie', I'm just curious about things which
don't appear logical when I turn over a few stones. I'm also intrigued
when some folk become exasperated by my questions instead of simply
answering them or, alternatively, ignore them!

I'd recommend against deleting files in "system" locations (and /etc very
definitely counts as one of those) if you don't know what their purpose is.
You didn't do any damage this time, but next time might result in an
unbootable system, and Mac repairs aren't cheap.

I appreciate your concern and thank you once again for your help. :-)

--
David B.

On 16/05/2018 16:33, nospam wrote:
In article 23,
Auric__ wrote:

I'm not trying to become a 'techie', I'm just curious about things which
don't appear logical when I turn over a few stones. I'm also intrigued
when some folk become exasperated by my questions instead of simply
answering them or, alternatively, ignore them!

I'd recommend against deleting files in "system" locations (and /etc very
definitely counts as one of those) if you don't know what their purpose is.
You didn't do any damage this time,

actually, he did, but he doesn't realize it.

Explain WHAT damage you claim I have done to my iMac

but next time might result in an
unbootable system, and Mac repairs aren't cheap.

fixing an unbootable system is simply reinstall, which is cheap, as in
free. deleting system related files will not cause hardware damage.

I agree - I don't believe my computer has been damaged in ANY way.

--
David B.

In article , Paul
wrote:

My old Mac at least, came with a re-install DVD. I copied that
to an .iso file with Imgburn or similar, and this is what I
can see in there right now with 7ZIP (that's why I keep copies
of DVDs on my hard drive, for this sort of exercise).

I opened the file with WordPad for a look (as it does a good job
on line terminations), just to see it's the same file.

https://s31.postimg.cc/szw904vt7/whe..._rc_common.gif

10.2??? yikes.

In article , David B.
wrote:

Have you tried KnockKnock? If so, with what result? I'm 99.99% certain
that it will not harm your computers.

it will when you don't understand what it does and end up removing
stuff you shouldn't.

In article , David B.
wrote:

I'm not trying to become a 'techie', I'm just curious about things which
don't appear logical when I turn over a few stones. I'm also intrigued
when some folk become exasperated by my questions instead of simply
answering them or, alternatively, ignore them!

I'd recommend against deleting files in "system" locations (and /etc very
definitely counts as one of those) if you don't know what their purpose is.
You didn't do any damage this time,

actually, he did, but he doesn't realize it.

Explain WHAT damage you claim I have done to my iMac

obviously not enough, because you're still online.

but next time might result in an
unbootable system, and Mac repairs aren't cheap.

fixing an unbootable system is simply reinstall, which is cheap, as in
free. deleting system related files will not cause hardware damage.

I agree - I don't believe my computer has been damaged in ANY way.

you believe a lot of things, few of which have any relation to reality.

nospam wrote:
In article , Paul
wrote:

My old Mac at least, came with a re-install DVD. I copied that
to an .iso file with Imgburn or similar, and this is what I
can see in there right now with 7ZIP (that's why I keep copies
of DVDs on my hard drive, for this sort of exercise).

I opened the file with WordPad for a look (as it does a good job
on line terminations), just to see it's the same file.

https://s31.postimg.cc/szw904vt7/whe..._rc_common.gif

10.2??? yikes.

I work with the materials I own.

And even though the disc is old, it still shows the file in question.

Which suggests the file probably isn't even used, and is presented
like a bowling trophy.

The purpose of me doing that, is to demonstrate to the OP how
you go about using your "materials on hand" to good effect. If
you look hard enough, you will likely find a copy on the disc.
Even if you have to burrow into a zipped archive. (A naive search
won't find it, you have to use your nose.)

Paul

In article , Paul
wrote:

My old Mac at least, came with a re-install DVD. I copied that
to an .iso file with Imgburn or similar, and this is what I
can see in there right now with 7ZIP (that's why I keep copies
of DVDs on my hard drive, for this sort of exercise).

I opened the file with WordPad for a look (as it does a good job
on line terminations), just to see it's the same file.

https://s31.postimg.cc/szw904vt7/whe..._rc_common.gif

10.2??? yikes.

I work with the materials I own.

And even though the disc is old, it still shows the file in question.

because it's part of the unix layer.

Which suggests the file probably isn't even used, and is presented
like a bowling trophy.

it's used.

The purpose of me doing that, is to demonstrate to the OP how
you go about using your "materials on hand" to good effect. If
you look hard enough, you will likely find a copy on the disc.
Even if you have to burrow into a zipped archive. (A naive search
won't find it, you have to use your nose.)

except that the original poster is not interested in what it actually
does.

David B. wrote:

I also enquired he

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topi...ter-place-to-a
sk-my-question/

You really should pick a single forum to ask a question in. There's no real
need to ask your question all over the place.

Have you tried KnockKnock?

No

If so, with what result? I'm 99.99% certain
that it will not harm your computers.

https://objective-see.com/products/knockknock.html

I imagine it's fine, but I'm not really interested in trying it.

--
You deny me Freshmaker?!?!?!?!?

On 17/05/2018 08:36, Auric__ wrote:
David B. wrote:

I also enquired he

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topi...ter-place-to-a
sk-my-question/

You really should pick a single forum to ask a question in. There's no real
need to ask your question all over the place.

Point taken.

Have you tried KnockKnock?

No

If so, with what result? I'm 99.99% certain
that it will not harm your computers.

https://objective-see.com/products/knockknock.html

I imagine it's fine, but I'm not really interested in trying it.

OK. No biggie.

Have a grand day :-)

--
David B.

On 17/05/2018 02:16, nospam wrote:
In article , Paul
wrote:

My old Mac at least, came with a re-install DVD. I copied that
to an .iso file with Imgburn or similar, and this is what I
can see in there right now with 7ZIP (that's why I keep copies
of DVDs on my hard drive, for this sort of exercise).

I opened the file with WordPad for a look (as it does a good job
on line terminations), just to see it's the same file.

https://s31.postimg.cc/szw904vt7/whe..._rc_common.gif

10.2??? yikes.

I work with the materials I own.

And even though the disc is old, it still shows the file in question.

because it's part of the unix layer.

Which suggests the file probably isn't even used, and is presented
like a bowling trophy.

it's used.

What for?

The purpose of me doing that, is to demonstrate to the OP how
you go about using your "materials on hand" to good effect. If
you look hard enough, you will likely find a copy on the disc.
Even if you have to burrow into a zipped archive. (A naive search
won't find it, you have to use your nose.)

except that the original poster is not interested in what it actually
does.

Yes, I am.

Sadly, YOU don't know the answer. shrug

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

And even though the disc is old, it still shows the file in question.

because it's part of the unix layer.

Which suggests the file probably isn't even used, and is presented
like a bowling trophy.

it's used.

What for?

you've been told what for close to a dozen times so far (that i've
seen), yet you keep asking the same question over and over again.

The purpose of me doing that, is to demonstrate to the OP how
you go about using your "materials on hand" to good effect. If
you look hard enough, you will likely find a copy on the disc.
Even if you have to burrow into a zipped archive. (A naive search
won't find it, you have to use your nose.)

except that the original poster is not interested in what it actually
does.

Yes, I am.

no, you are very clearly not.

if you were, you would not keep asking the same question over and over
and over in multiple threads and in multiple groups, ignoring all
answers given.

Sadly, YOU don't know the answer. shrug

oh yes i do.

On 17/05/2018 14:39, nospam wrote:
In article , David B.
wrote:

And even though the disc is old, it still shows the file in question.

because it's part of the unix layer.

Which suggests the file probably isn't even used, and is presented
like a bowling trophy.

it's used.

What for?

you've been told what for close to a dozen times so far (that i've
seen), yet you keep asking the same question over and over again.

I'm FAR more inclined to believe Paul than take YOUR false word. Please
tell HIM what it's purpose is and we'll see if he believes you.

The purpose of me doing that, is to demonstrate to the OP how
you go about using your "materials on hand" to good effect. If
you look hard enough, you will likely find a copy on the disc.
Even if you have to burrow into a zipped archive. (A naive search
won't find it, you have to use your nose.)

except that the original poster is not interested in what it actually
does.

Yes, I am.

no, you are very clearly not.

You are wrong again.

if you were, you would not keep asking the same question over and over
and over in multiple threads and in multiple groups, ignoring all
answers given.

Perhaps those answers are being filtered out because I deleted the rogue
copy of the file. Might that be it?

Sadly, YOU don't know the answer. shrug

oh yes i do.

Really? Well then - Tell Paul and any other folk reading this thread.

*Put your money where your mouth is*!

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

The purpose of me doing that, is to demonstrate to the OP how
you go about using your "materials on hand" to good effect. If
you look hard enough, you will likely find a copy on the disc.
Even if you have to burrow into a zipped archive. (A naive search
won't find it, you have to use your nose.)

except that the original poster is not interested in what it actually
does.

Yes, I am.

no, you are very clearly not.

You are wrong again.

given that you've asked the same question nearly a dozen times (and no
doubt plenty more on the various web forums you infest), ignoring any
explanations given, i'm exactly correct.

if you were, you would not keep asking the same question over and over
and over in multiple threads and in multiple groups, ignoring all
answers given.

Perhaps those answers are being filtered out because I deleted the rogue
copy of the file. Might that be it?

no, that is not it.

nothing is being filtered out. you've even responded to some of the
answers, making it quite clear that nothing is being filtered out. in
other words, you've just been caught lying again.

Sadly, YOU don't know the answer. shrug

oh yes i do.

Really? Well then - Tell Paul and any other folk reading this thread.

people in this newsgroup don't give a **** what a system file on a mac
does, and the people in the mac groups already know you're a dumb****
troll.

*Put your money where your mouth is*!

how about you put a gun where your mouth is.

On 16/05/2018 15:45, nospam wrote:
In article , David B.
wrote:


fearing malware, he actually removed the script:

I removed the script *identified by KnockKnock* as an unknown item.

it's not an unknown item. it's a critical part of mac os.

A good job I still have it then, even though I deleted the copy, eh?!!!

The relevant REAL file is still installed and can still be found on my
machine. It is NOT, though, found by KnockKnock when 'not including
os/known items' is selected.

not if you removed it, it isn't.

I apparently removed a *COPY*

I still don't understand why KnockKnock found the 'rogue' script which I
deleted. I'm content now that I've investigated to some extent. :-)

because knockknock and it's ilk are buggy.

A bad workman often blames his tools!

you also have zero knowledge of what's going on internally to
understand what any such utility is actually telling you.

You'd be amazed at how much I've learned by experimentation.

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

fearing malware, he actually removed the script:

I removed the script *identified by KnockKnock* as an unknown item.

it's not an unknown item. it's a critical part of mac os.

A good job I still have it then, even though I deleted the copy, eh?!!!

bull****. changing your story so quickly?

The relevant REAL file is still installed and can still be found on my
machine. It is NOT, though, found by KnockKnock when 'not including
os/known items' is selected.

not if you removed it, it isn't.

I apparently removed a *COPY*

'apparently'.

you have absolutely no idea what you did or what you're doing.

I still don't understand why KnockKnock found the 'rogue' script which I
deleted. I'm content now that I've investigated to some extent. :-)

because knockknock and it's ilk are buggy.

A bad workman often blames his tools!

a smart workman knows how the tools work internally, their limitations
and what they are actually telling the user.
a smart workman also knows the purpose of the file in question and why
any tool that claims that such a file is malware is buggy crap.

you also have zero knowledge of what's going on internally to
understand what any such utility is actually telling you.

You'd be amazed at how much I've learned by experimentation.

no i wouldn't, because it's absolutely nothing.

had you learned *anything*, you wouldn't repeatedly ask the *same*
questions over and over and over and over again.