Firefox SECRETLY storing your login credentials?

On 2018-12-12 11:18, default wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:31 -0500, Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote:

On 2018-12-11 04:17, default wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:41:23 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"David B." "David wrote
| Even if you/we THINK that a device is 'off' it COULD still be in
| communication with an outside entity.
|

I know my Tracphone is off when I turn it
off because the charge will last for months and
it can't get calls. It could certainly have some
kind of beacon in it, but that seems very unlikely.
It only cost $10.

exactly.

if your phone was transmitting to some outside entity, the battery
would be dead within hours.


That's only true if the phone is fully functioning. It could still
record audio with just a tiny smidgen of the power it takes to receive
and transmit. Compress the audio and transmit in a burst and you'd
never know it by the battery capacity.

I had my iPhone fully powered down for _three days_. It was still at
100%. I did it again a few days later. It was still at 100%. Three days.
Even a small amount of power over three days will be noticed.

You aren't sneaky enough. You are going to trust the battery level
the phone is telling you about? The same phone that someone has
hacked and presumably put in some ways to convince you it isn't
hacked?


You have yet to show that the phone _has_ been hacked. And your attitude
shows that no level of proof will convince you. You are demonstrably insane.

On 2018-12-09 21:07, lew wrote:
On 2018-12-09, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 20:18:10 -0000 (UTC), lew
wrote:


And no one mentions that a person has to login to a google account
in order to be able to use the Chrome browser?



Not true. I don't like and don't use Chrome, although it's still
installed here from when I tried it.

So to test what you said, I just started Chrome, *without* logging
into a Google account. No problems at all.

Do you have Chrome installed on win10?

Yes. I don't have any Google accounts of any kind. I can use Chrome. I
usually don't. I usually use Firefox.


For several years, after Chrome was installed, when I start Chrome
there is a prompt to login to Google BEFORE Chrome would work.

I have never seen that.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:20:49 -0500, Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote:

On 2018-12-12 11:18, default wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:31 -0500, Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote:

On 2018-12-11 04:17, default wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:41:23 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"David B." "David wrote
| Even if you/we THINK that a device is 'off' it COULD still be in
| communication with an outside entity.
|

I know my Tracphone is off when I turn it
off because the charge will last for months and
it can't get calls. It could certainly have some
kind of beacon in it, but that seems very unlikely.
It only cost $10.

exactly.

if your phone was transmitting to some outside entity, the battery
would be dead within hours.


That's only true if the phone is fully functioning. It could still
record audio with just a tiny smidgen of the power it takes to receive
and transmit. Compress the audio and transmit in a burst and you'd
never know it by the battery capacity.

I had my iPhone fully powered down for _three days_. It was still at
100%. I did it again a few days later. It was still at 100%. Three days.
Even a small amount of power over three days will be noticed.

You aren't sneaky enough. You are going to trust the battery level
the phone is telling you about? The same phone that someone has
hacked and presumably put in some ways to convince you it isn't
hacked?


You have yet to show that the phone _has_ been hacked. And your attitude
shows that no level of proof will convince you. You are demonstrably insane.

I really don't care what you believe. Clinging to a false hope of
security is insanity IMO.

In article , default
wrote:

if your phone was transmitting to some outside entity, the battery
would be dead within hours.


That's only true if the phone is fully functioning. It could still
record audio with just a tiny smidgen of the power it takes to receive
and transmit. Compress the audio and transmit in a burst and you'd
never know it by the battery capacity.

I had my iPhone fully powered down for _three days_. It was still at
100%. I did it again a few days later. It was still at 100%. Three days.
Even a small amount of power over three days will be noticed.

You aren't sneaky enough. You are going to trust the battery level
the phone is telling you about? The same phone that someone has
hacked and presumably put in some ways to convince you it isn't
hacked?


You have yet to show that the phone _has_ been hacked. And your attitude
shows that no level of proof will convince you. You are demonstrably insane.

I really don't care what you believe. Clinging to a false hope of
security is insanity IMO.

nothing false about it.

what's insanity is concocting absurd scenarios, ranging from extremely
unlikely to not physically possible.

On 2018-12-14 08:11, nospam wrote:
In article , default
wrote:

if your phone was transmitting to some outside entity, the battery
would be dead within hours.


That's only true if the phone is fully functioning. It could still
record audio with just a tiny smidgen of the power it takes to receive
and transmit. Compress the audio and transmit in a burst and you'd
never know it by the battery capacity.

I had my iPhone fully powered down for _three days_. It was still at
100%. I did it again a few days later. It was still at 100%. Three days.
Even a small amount of power over three days will be noticed.

You aren't sneaky enough. You are going to trust the battery level
the phone is telling you about? The same phone that someone has
hacked and presumably put in some ways to convince you it isn't
hacked?


You have yet to show that the phone _has_ been hacked. And your attitude
shows that no level of proof will convince you. You are demonstrably insane.

I really don't care what you believe. Clinging to a false hope of
security is insanity IMO.

nothing false about it.

what's insanity is concocting absurd scenarios, ranging from extremely
unlikely to not physically possible.

It's just not possible to do half of what he says happens. It's simply
not happening.

In article , Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote:


I had my iPhone fully powered down for _three days_. It was still at
100%. I did it again a few days later. It was still at 100%. Three days.
Even a small amount of power over three days will be noticed.

You aren't sneaky enough. You are going to trust the battery level
the phone is telling you about? The same phone that someone has
hacked and presumably put in some ways to convince you it isn't
hacked?


You have yet to show that the phone _has_ been hacked. And your attitude
shows that no level of proof will convince you. You are demonstrably
insane.

I really don't care what you believe. Clinging to a false hope of
security is insanity IMO.

nothing false about it.

what's insanity is concocting absurd scenarios, ranging from extremely
unlikely to not physically possible.

It's just not possible to do half of what he says happens. It's simply
not happening.

way more than half.

"Panthera Tigris Altaica" wrote

| It's just not possible to do half of what he says happens. It's simply
| not happening.

You just jumped from doubting that a phone
turned off can spy to doubting that any sort
of intrusion happens. Which half isn't true? Which
half are you talking about? Or are you saying
that everything he said is false? Between you
and nospam this turns rather silly, since both of
you favor making dogmatic pronouncements with
little or no context and no supporting links or
arguments.

I agree that it seems farfetched to think a
phone turned off can be activated, but....

https://web.archive.org/web/20061206...9-6140191.html

That's a good example of why so much spying
can happen. In many cases people -- even technical
people who know about computers -- never imagine
it's even possible. I'm often surprised by something
that I just hadn't even imagined.

I can give you all sorts of links about some
surprising stuff.

On 2018-12-14 10:16, Mayayana wrote:
"Panthera Tigris Altaica" wrote

| It's just not possible to do half of what he says happens. It's simply
| not happening.

You just jumped from doubting that a phone
turned off can spy to doubting that any sort
of intrusion happens.

No. I am specifically talking about the stuff he was talking about.
About how the phone is rigged to lie to you about the battery capacity.
About how there are invisible applications which you cannot detect and
which do not use power and which can send data to others but can't be
spotted by someone listening for them on the radio frequencies used by
the phone. That kind of thinking is, simply, paranoia.

In article , Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote:

| It's just not possible to do half of what he says happens. It's simply
| not happening.

You just jumped from doubting that a phone
turned off can spy to doubting that any sort
of intrusion happens.

No. I am specifically talking about the stuff he was talking about.
About how the phone is rigged to lie to you about the battery capacity.
About how there are invisible applications which you cannot detect and
which do not use power and which can send data to others but can't be
spotted by someone listening for them on the radio frequencies used by
the phone. That kind of thinking is, simply, paranoia.

it's better described as lunacy.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| It's just not possible to do half of what he says happens. It's simply
| not happening.

You just jumped from doubting that a phone
turned off can spy to doubting that any sort
of intrusion happens. Which half isn't true? Which
half are you talking about? Or are you saying
that everything he said is false? Between you
and nospam this turns rather silly, since both of
you favor making dogmatic pronouncements with
little or no context and no supporting links or
arguments.

other way around. the conspiracy nutjobs come up with ridiculous
scenarios without a shred of evidence how it could be done.

I agree that it seems farfetched to think a
phone turned off can be activated, but....

it cannot. period.

it's simply *not* possible for a phone that's off to be remotely turned
on unless that phone has been modified somehow to not really be off, in
which case, the battery would drain and the user would notice something
odd was happening.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061206...100-1029-61401
91.html

That's a good example of why so much spying
can happen.

no it isn't.

the above leaves out a *lot* of important details such as how the bug
supposedly worked and is 12 years old and not applicable to modern
smartphones.

note this part:
One private investigator interviewed by CNET News.com, Skipp Porteous
of Sherlock Investigations in New York, said he believed the FBI
planted a physical bug somewhere in the Nextel handset and did not
remotely activate the microphone.

In many cases people -- even technical
people who know about computers -- never imagine
it's even possible. I'm often surprised by something
that I just hadn't even imagined.

what's surprising is how often people believe conspiracy theories.

I can give you all sorts of links about some
surprising stuff.

so what?

i can give you all sorts of links saying the earth is flat and that the
moon landings were faked.

On 12/12/2018 13:30, nospam wrote:
In article , David B.
wrote:

You seem to have no comprehension that spyware/malware may actually be
'built in' to these devices during the manufacturing process, not
afterwards by hacking.

they aren't.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for you to know that, 'nospam'.

out of the billions of phones out there, nobody has found any evidence
of malware from the manufacturer. certainly *someone* would have found
*something* by now.

That ain't necessarily so! [song]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP5O_NUhrK0

bloomberg recently ran story about spy chips in servers, which was
questioned from the start and has been shown to be completely false.

I'm always pleased when such matters are investigated.

Such an answer renders unreliable EVERY answer you provide in any Usenet
group.

also false.

Not at all. You have provided absolutely *NO* credentials so have
absolutely no credence at all.

and why did you crosspost this thread? that makes *you* even a bigger
troll than you already are.

I simply wanted fellow Apple device users to be made aware of your
fallibility.

--
Regards,
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

You seem to have no comprehension that spyware/malware may actually be
'built in' to these devices during the manufacturing process, not
afterwards by hacking.

they aren't.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for you to know that, 'nospam'.

out of the billions of phones out there, nobody has found any evidence
of malware from the manufacturer. certainly *someone* would have found
*something* by now.

That ain't necessarily so! [song]

it is necessarily so, and don't sing or post irrelevant crap.

https://www.

bloomberg recently ran story about spy chips in servers, which was
questioned from the start and has been shown to be completely false.

I'm always pleased when such matters are investigated.

bull****.

you feed on uncertainty so you can troll.

Such an answer renders unreliable EVERY answer you provide in any Usenet
group.

also false.

Not at all. You have provided absolutely *NO* credentials so have
absolutely no credence at all.

nope. not only have you provided no credentials, but you have
demonstrated that you are incredibly stupid.

and why did you crosspost this thread? that makes *you* even a bigger
troll than you already are.

I simply wanted fellow Apple device users to be made aware of your
fallibility.

no you didn't.

more of your lies and attacks.

David B. wrote:

nospam wrote:

bloomberg recently ran story about spy chips in servers, which was
questioned from the start and has been shown to be completely false.

I'm always pleased when such matters are investigated.

Recent CCC presentation

https://youtu.be/C7H3V7tkxeA

On 04/01/2019 09:09, Andy Burns wrote:
David B. wrote:

nospam wrote:

bloomberg recently ran story about spy chips in servers, which was
questioned from the start and has been shown to be completely false.

I'm always pleased when such matters are investigated.

Recent CCC presentation

https://youtu.be/C7H3V7tkxeA

Thank you.

I'm watching. Most interesting.

--
David B.

In article , Andy Burns
wrote:


bloomberg recently ran story about spy chips in servers, which was
questioned from the start and has been shown to be completely false.

I'm always pleased when such matters are investigated.

Recent CCC presentation

https://youtu.be/C7H3V7tkxeA

that just states it's theoretically possible, which is true. nothing is
100% secure.

what it neglects to mention is that there are *multiple* checks to
prevent it from happening, *all* of which would need to be bypassed.

still, not a single affected board has been found. not a one.