If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:38:40 -0700, Mike Easter
wrote: David_B wrote: I'm simply trying my best to expose any bad actors I might find online. That isn't actually what is going on w/ you. You already know that others who are more skilled than you do not share your concerns about this clamxav issue. In fact, once upon a time you were confused about your observations while messing w/ clamxav. Then, next you became 'miffed'/ inappropriately 'offended'/ because clamxav dev wouldn't 'dance' w/ you. Then next you look everywhere you can to attempt to besmirch clamxav such as wailing because they don't choose to do their support in FB and instead to provide their support in their own way. You try to make a 'big deal' out of the fact that in terms of 'commercial presence' clamxav isn't a 'big deal' because -1- Mac AV isn't really a very important sphere -2- clamxav's popularity waned when they stopped giving it away -3- the engine clamav and its db isn't a very important engine/db. And, you like to make noise about it to stir up activity, which is 'trollish'. And you like to pretend to be an 'investigator'. which 'job' you once agreed that you would or should cease because you weren't an expert, but you didn't/haven't. At least he RE-discovered what a .KO file is. Forgetting must have been VERY difficult, what with his claim he's been "investigating" Apple malware for years. Or maybe not so difficult. BD suffers from self-inflicted chemically induced brain damage. Group where main discussion occurred reinstated, even though it was OT. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
"David_B" wrote:
On 11/06/2020 11:16, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:55:44 +0100, "Apd" wrote: It was alerting on a script from cdn.siteswithcontent.com. That domain has apparently been associated with adware. The script is OK so it's a false positive. Even so, I don't expect that David either knew or intended that it be there. Thanks, Eric. :-) I had absolutely no idea it was there. :-( No reason why you would. I wonder if Apd knows from whence the script originated. From where I said, cdn.siteswithcontent.com. CDN = content distribution network. It supplies part of the web page content, i.e. javascript for notifications, as I said elsewhere. It's common for sites to pull their scripts from such places. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
In article , Apd
wrote: It was alerting on a script from cdn.siteswithcontent.com. That domain has apparently been associated with adware. The script is OK so it's a false positive. Even so, I don't expect that David either knew or intended that it be there. Thanks, Eric. :-) I had absolutely no idea it was there. :-( No reason why you would. he claims to be an investigator hunting down the bad guys. such a person *would* know it was there. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was -
On 11/06/2020 22:07, nospam wrote:
In article , David_B wrote: Some folk (Shadow for one) seem to be going out of their way to stop me from trying to verify that ClamXav is a bona fide software programme. more of your lies. what you're actually doing is going out of your way to single out and attack everything about clamxav, going so far to even dox the developer. Whatever are you talking about? There's no hiding bona fide companies in the UK. Information is plain to see for anyone who cares to look! https://ibb.co/dQwpBvD which you of course did, along with doing quite a bit more, including digging up his family and financial information, which you then posted to usenet and no doubt to many other places. I have posted NOTHING which is not in the public domain. You, on the other hand, make a claim but provide no supporting evidence. Interesting to note that Mr Allan was *born* exactly three years before I retired from the Royal Navy! no, that's not interesting at all. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was -
On 11/06/2020 23:25, nospam wrote:
In article , Apd wrote: It was alerting on a script from cdn.siteswithcontent.com. That domain has apparently been associated with adware. The script is OK so it's a false positive. Even so, I don't expect that David either knew or intended that it be there. Thanks, Eric. :-) I had absolutely no idea it was there. :-( No reason why you would. he claims to be an investigator hunting down the bad guys. I am. such a person *would* know it was there. I'm still learning! *HOW* would I know there was a script involved? |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 20:59:40 +0100, David_B
wrote: which you of course did, along with doing quite a bit more, including digging up his family and financial information, which you then posted to usenet and no doubt to many other places. I have posted NOTHING which is not in the public domain. Were the PRIVATE emails between you and your STALKING_TARGET in the "public domain" before you posted them all over the place? Did you get his permission to publish them? Please don't call me a *LIAR* again or I'll have to post the MSG_IDs proving where and when you posted them. TIA OT up again. BD has trouble understanding that Apple software is OT in Win 10 groups. This thread NEVER WAS about Win 10. ------------------------------------- BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to hide". I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request, rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!": https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php 66 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes! Google "David Brooks Devon" []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was -
On 11/06/2020 22:01, Apd wrote:
"David_B" wrote: On 11/06/2020 13:07, Apd wrote: "Anonymous" (one-in-the-eye-for-dustin) wrote: On 11/06/2020 08:57, Apd wrote: "David_B" wrote: On 10/06/2020 20:35, Paul wrote: It is common industry practice ("code of the hills") to not discuss the details of AV implementations. You could, for example, be a Black Hat who is looking for a MacOSX vulnerability idea, and whatever the developer had jammed into the OS, might be suggestive of an API a Black Hat could attack. Ah! Thank you, Paul. :-) That's not something I have ever considered, nor has anyone else ever mentioned such a thing! Because I don't think it applies in this situation. The software was supposed to be uninstalled. The leftovers you had were a marker (so it would know about a reinstall) and possibly log files and other ephemeral stuff. Did you carry out exactly the same procedure? It would be interesting to review the "marker" and "ephemeral stuff". Or are you simply guessing? I'd appreciate you not use socks with me, BD. Oops! Sorry about that. :-( I posted from my laptop, which I've been updating to the most recent version of Windows - 2004. Perhaps you'd like to explain why an AV program would leave behind files to do with it's implementation after an uninstall, by which I mean those containing the mechanism whereby it detects threats. That would be part of the program code. Ok, a signature database might be left behind as it could be a separate install but that's no big deal. I'm not talking about *ANY* AV software - I'm referring to ClamXav. I know. I was responding to why Paul's reason, about not discussing details of implementation, was never mentioned as should be clear from the quoted context. I understand. Thank you. The marker was noted by Snit, I believe. If you make a list of those files and show me the content I'll endeavour to explain their purpose. You have a Mac. Why can't you test for yourself? Then there could be no doubt of the result. The 'Trial' is free - all it will cost is a little bit of your time. I can't run the current version - my system is too old. Anyway, the onus is on you to do the legwork. If you had modern equipment, would you install ClamXav? You are an experienced Internet user. Please explain why you think the current opening Website page starts out talking about an old version of ClamXav http://www.markallan.co.uk/ I don't see that. There's a link to clamxav.com. This web page demonstrates that the business is not keeping its online material up-to-date. https://www.clamxav.com/clamxav-3-is-here/ aside I've installed AVG on my iMac and run a scan. About 15 items have been removed into Quarantine. Would you have the time and inclination to examine them? If so, I may need some help to extract them from quarantine and place them into your hands. -- David |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
David_B wrote:
I've installed AVG on my iMac and run a scan. About 15 items have been removed into Quarantine. What do you know about PUPs? https://www.howtogeek.com/232791/pup...anted-program/ PUPs Explained: What is a “Potentially Unwanted Program”? -- Why They’re Called PUPs and Not Malware AVs /luv/ to find pups. -- Mike Easter |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:48:29 -0700, Mike Easter
wrote: David_B wrote: I've installed AVG on my iMac and run a scan. About 15 items have been removed into Quarantine. You stated you were running Sophos (or was it Trend? - I don't keep dossiers). What happened to them? What do you know about PUPs? BD? A lot (unless he's forgotten). He manipulated a looooong thread about "malware" on an AOL disk, which was either a PUP or a false-positive. A software so old it had been removed from most vendor's whitelists. The concept was explained to him in detail by numerous posters. He knows all about uploading them to scanner sites for a second opinion. Lets not start over. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
In article , David_B
wrote: Some folk (Shadow for one) seem to be going out of their way to stop me from trying to verify that ClamXav is a bona fide software programme. more of your lies. what you're actually doing is going out of your way to single out and attack everything about clamxav, going so far to even dox the developer. Whatever are you talking about? There's no hiding bona fide companies in the UK. Information is plain to see for anyone who cares to look! https://ibb.co/dQwpBvD which you of course did, along with doing quite a bit more, including digging up his family and financial information, which you then posted to usenet and no doubt to many other places. I have posted NOTHING which is not in the public domain. thereby admitting you intentionally doxxed him as well as others. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
In article , Mike Easter
wrote: AVs /luv/ to find pups. they do a lot of things just to scare people so that they buy their products. mac anti-malware apps report finding *windows* malware, which are guaranteed to not do anything on mac os, but it makes the number of items found bigger and impresses the stupid. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
On 13/06/2020 02:15, nospam wrote:
In article , Mike Easter wrote: AVs /luv/ to find pups. they do a lot of things just to scare people so that they buy their products. mac anti-malware apps report finding *windows* malware, which are guaranteed to not do anything on mac os, but it makes the number of items found bigger and impresses the stupid. THIS thread explains that the malware I detected wasn't ORDINARY malware, but an extra-special item. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...6-e565d2571849 Specific definition of same may be found he- https://blog.malwarebytes.com/detections/virus-ramnit/ |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was -
David_B wrote:
THIS thread explains that the malware I detected wasn't ORDINARY malware, but an extra-special item. Ramnit did NOT come on some ancient 2008 AOL disk you had. It had not even been created at that time. Ramnit was born in 2011 and peaked in about 2015. It wasn't distributed on any AOL disk which preceded its existence by years and years. You made some kind of mistake by mixing and matching things from completely different 'generations' and inviting a false report. -- Mike Easter |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was
David_B wrote:
ramnit-trojan-on-imac-aol-disk-from-2008 Someone is shoving AOL CDs from 2008, into a computer ? https://ei.marke****ch.com/Multimedi...8180147_ZG.jpg Paul |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was - Oops! (Was - '3D'))
In article , Mike Easter
wrote: David_B wrote: THIS thread explains that the malware I detected wasn't ORDINARY malware, but an extra-special item. Ramnit did NOT come on some ancient 2008 AOL disk you had. of course not. he's been told that many, many times before. he ignored it then and will ignore it now. It had not even been created at that time. Ramnit was born in 2011 and peaked in about 2015. It wasn't distributed on any AOL disk which preceded its existence by years and years. You made some kind of mistake by mixing and matching things from completely different 'generations' and inviting a false report. he didn't make a mistake. his goal is to troll, not to find malware. malware is just the bait to hook people. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|