Second opinion requested! Does anyone else get a warning? (was -

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:56:37 +0100, David_B
wrote:

What response do you think 'someone' would receive if they were to
contact the developer he- https://www./support/contact-us/

If you are a customer (IOW not using a cracked version of the
software) I expect you will get a civil reply. Likewise if you are not
*BANNED* for asking personal and other abusive questions.
Otherwise, your attempts at STALKING will probably be ignored.
Why ask if you've already tried? You know the answer.

PS Is this discussion about Apple AVs? Why did you cross post
to the Win 10 and photo groups?
And why ask for a "second" opinion if you've already had
TWELVE and they all said the same?

-------------------------------------
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

65 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

Shadow wrote:


Maybe you should advertise it. You've installed it multiple
times on your machines. You even asked people repeatedly to crack it
so you wouldn't have to pay(and they did, and you used the crack). You
must really love it.

You mean David didn't crack the software himself ?

*******

Clamxav 2 free in 2006.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060503...w.clamxav.com/

Clamxav 2 free in 2014

https://web.archive.org/web/20140929...w.clamxav.com/

Clamxav 3 becomes payware, because the donation thing is doomed to failure.

*******

https://web.archive.org/web/20160410....com/about.php

"About ClamXav

Back in the days before OS X, the number of viruses which attacked
Macintosh users totaled somewhere between about 60 and 80. Today,
the number of viruses actively attacking OS X users is none. However,
this doesn't mean we should get complacent about checking
incoming email attachments or web downloads."

So that's the threat surface. Where web downloads might include
a .dmg with some software in it. You might just as easily
scan that .dmg with virustotal.com (hoping and praying that
a Mac-centric AV is in their list of AV programs).

Paul

On 10/06/2020 12:33, Paul wrote:
Shadow wrote:


Maybe you should advertise it. You've installed it multiple
times on your machines. You even asked people repeatedly to crack it
so you wouldn't have to pay(and they did, and you used the crack). You
must really love it.

You mean David didn't crack the software himself ?

David has NEVER cracked any software, nor has he ever USED any cracked
software.

*******

Clamxav 2 free in 2006.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060503...w.clamxav.com/

Clamxav 2 free in 2014

https://web.archive.org/web/20140929...w.clamxav.com/

Clamxav 3 becomes payware, because the donation thing is doomed to failure.

*******

https://web.archive.org/web/20160410....com/about.php

Â*Â* "About ClamXav

Â*Â*Â* Back in the days before OS X, the number of viruses which attacked
Â*Â*Â* Macintosh users totaled somewhere between about 60 and 80. Today,
Â*Â*Â* the number of viruses actively attacking OS X users is *NONE*. However,
Â*Â*Â* this doesn't mean we should get complacent about checking
Â*Â*Â* incoming email attachments or web downloads."

So that's the threat surface. Where web downloads might include
a .dmg with some software in it. You might just as easily
scan that .dmg with virustotal.com (hoping and praying that
a Mac-centric AV is in their list of AV programs).

Â*Â* Paul

I was introduced to AppCleaner by another Usenet poster.

On my old iMac, I downloaded and installed the 'Trial' version of
ClamXav. I then uninstalled it with the official uninstaller. I then
used the AppCleaner software - and it found all manner of 'stuff' which
ClamXav had left still installed.

My concern is that what is 'left behind' MAY be doing malicious things -
with the user of that computer being completely unaware of anything
untoward happening. The product developer refused to discuss this
possibility with me. :-(


FYI:- https://freemacsoft.net/appcleaner/


Trash Icon by Jonas Rask.

Thanks to all those who have encouraged and helped me during the
development.

AppCleaner is free. You can use it and redistribute it freely.
If you find any bugs or mistakes in the translation or if you have
improvements to suggest, please write to me.

AppCleaner is distributed "as-is" and without warranty. I'm not in any
way responsible for software or hardware damage that may result from its
use.

Localizations

- Claudio @TranSuppo (Italian, Spanish)
- Vicente Greus (Spanish fixes)
- E.J. lannelli (German)
- Alen Bajo (Croatian)
- Pär Boberg (Swedish)

On 10/06/2020 17:40, Mike Easter wrote:
Win10 group removed; Mac stuff doesn't belong there

With the greatest of respect, Mike, it is for ME to choose with which
groups to share. I have, and do use, a Windows 10 computer and am well
aware that there are good and honest folk there who give great advice.

David_B wrote:

I was introduced to AppCleaner by another Usenet poster.

On my old iMac, I downloaded and installed the 'Trial' version of
ClamXav. I then uninstalled it with the official uninstaller. I then
used the AppCleaner software - and it found all manner of 'stuff'
which ClamXav had left still installed.

AppCleaner and other such cleaners are popular because it is very common
for uninstalled programs to leave stuff behind.Â* AppCleaner and other
such ware need to/ can/ be used for 'thousands' of other mac programs
which leave harmless stuff behind which takes up some hdd space.

Are there OTHER folk who are concerned about 'stuff' being left behind?

How would an average user recognise that such 'stuff' is "harmless" as
you claim? If the Apple computer user does NOT use AV software (as is
recommended by Apple) how on earth would someone know that something
malicious was left lurking on their machine?

My concern is that what is 'left behind' MAY be doing malicious things
- with the user of that computer being completely unaware of anything
untoward happening. The product developer refused to discuss this
possibility with me. :-(

Others who have investigated your concern have provided reassurances to
you, but you remain an adversary of the clamxav dev all the same.

I'm not an 'adversary' - I seek only the truth.

There are articles which you might benefit from reading about the
psychology of those who harbor grudges as you do and how it fits into a
personality type.

Neither am I harbouring "grudges". I knew EXACTLY what I was doing when
I purchased the product - digging deeper, looking for clues.

The dev has no obligation to converse w/ some excessively critical
adversary like you who does not deserve or require 'support' for use of
the software.

You use that "adversary" word again. I paid for the product and was
ENTITLED to the Product Support.

Also, while AppCleaner has fairly good reviews, your paranoid/hinky
streak might have concern over the fact that it is NOT blessed by the
applestore.Â* There are other such cleaners which ARE authorized by
Apple, and which also have some advantages over appcleaner.

The AppCleaner product was recommended to me by a university graduate
friend with many more years of experience of Apple software than I have.
I had/have no reason to question the validity of his advice.

Which alternative(s) do you suggest I try?

(Bearing in mind that YOU are just 'some guy I met on the Internet'! ;-) )

--
David

David_B wrote:

I was introduced to AppCleaner by another Usenet poster.

On my old iMac, I downloaded and installed the 'Trial' version of
ClamXav. I then uninstalled it with the official uninstaller. I then
used the AppCleaner software - and it found all manner of 'stuff' which
ClamXav had left still installed.

My concern is that what is 'left behind' MAY be doing malicious things -
with the user of that computer being completely unaware of anything
untoward happening. The product developer refused to discuss this
possibility with me. :-(


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.

Even though Black Hats are more than capable of fuzzing an OS
and finding stuff for themselves.

I would say you're most at risk in a targeted situation. If
your Mac was in an office at an oil company, you're more likely
to receive bogus email attachments. Home user domains are not
as lucrative as targets. That's part of what is keeping you
safe, and not the usage of Clamxav.

One individual by themselves, is unlikely to do enough
heuristic detection features to be "heroic" at it. And
just copying the (Win) Clamav database, and chucking in
60-80 classic MacOS ones and their signatures, isn't
much of a "signature fortress" for a MacOSX machine.
Only if there was some magical MacOSX-specific content
in the Clamav database, would this tool have some
validity.

Paul

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:03:29 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 10/06/2020 12:33, Paul wrote:
Shadow wrote:


Maybe you should advertise it. You've installed it multiple
times on your machines. You even asked people repeatedly to crack it
so you wouldn't have to pay(and they did, and you used the crack). You
must really love it.

You mean David didn't crack the software himself ?

LOL. BD is incapable of coding his way out of a wet paper bag.

Here is just a small sample of his requests:

Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:
etc etc
And success at last!!! The crack!!! His crony broke the
protection!!!
Message-ID:

He later goes on to "offer" the crack to another poster, who
declines. BD then says he was "testing him".

Another LOL.

David has NEVER cracked any software, nor has he ever USED any cracked
software.

BD has a tendency to *LIE* a lot. As you can see by the MSGs
above.
HTH
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 10/06/2020 20:35, Paul wrote:
David_B wrote:

I was introduced to AppCleaner by another Usenet poster.

On my old iMac, I downloaded and installed the 'Trial' version of
ClamXav. I then uninstalled it with the official uninstaller. I then
used the AppCleaner software - and it found all manner of 'stuff'
which ClamXav had left still installed.

My concern is that what is 'left behind' MAY be doing malicious things
- with the user of that computer being completely unaware of anything
untoward happening. The product developer refused to discuss this
possibility with me. :-(


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!

Even though Black Hats are more than capable of fuzzing an OS
and finding stuff for themselves.

Of that I have no doubt!

I would say you're most at risk in a targeted situation. If
your Mac was in an office at an oil company, you're more likely
to receive bogus email attachments. Home user domains are not
as lucrative as targets. That's part of what is keeping you
safe, and not the usage of Clamxav.

Understood. Just to clarify, I am NOT using ClamXav on my computers, nor
will I *ever* install it on my fairly new machine.

One individual by themselves, is unlikely to do enough
heuristic detection features to be "heroic" at it. And
just copying the (Win) Clamav database, and chucking in
60-80 classic MacOS ones and their signatures, isn't
much of a "signature fortress" for a MacOSX machine.
Only if there was some magical MacOSX-specific content
in the Clamav database, would this tool have some
validity.

I get the feeling that YOU are not enamoured with the product either, Paul!

I really appreciate you taking the time out to respond to me. Thanks
again. :-D

On 10/06/2020 6:02 pm, David_B wrote:
On 10/06/2020 00:16, geoff wrote:
On 10/06/2020 7:39 am, David_B wrote:


I'm puzzled as to why THIS product hasn't found its way onto the list
of the best in the business though:-

https://www.clamxav.com

Any thoughts as to why it doesn't feature in the listing?


Sounds like a medicinal vaginal treatment. Possibly could be
better-named.


That's upside-down thinking for sure, geoff! :-)

Not many folk here like the product either:-

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav/

Less than 400 the last time I looked.

It could also be audio-visual systems for the bearded-clam (!)


geoff

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 10:23:57 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 6/6/20 PDT 5:42 AM, David_B wrote:
On 06/06/2020 04:18, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:58:14 +1200, geoff
wrote:

On 5/06/2020 4:35 am, David_B wrote:
On 04/06/2020 17:32, David_B wrote:
Here's a piccie of what Banbury was like in 2004 - my boat is the
first on left hand side.

https://ibb.co/XYBwqqv

Sorry about that! ;-)


Yeah I wondered where the image link was.

Presumably you mean the first 'whole' boat on LHS ?

Nice pic, niceÂ* boats. Great sense of depth. I think I would find the
mentioned faux '3D' effect detracting from it.

geoff

Malicious link is blocked ... Kaspersky

Please post a screenshot, Eric.

Perhaps Kaspersky is mistaken?

Wasn't a problem at all.

The malicious link most likely not in David's image but bundled with
the compressed image downloaded with David's image.

McAfee never used to find these by Kaspersky has warned me of several.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 18:37:45 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 06/06/2020 18:23, John McWilliams wrote:
On 6/6/20Â*Â* PDT 5:42 AM, David_B wrote:
On 06/06/2020 04:18, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:58:14 +1200, geoff
wrote:

On 5/06/2020 4:35 am, David_B wrote:
On 04/06/2020 17:32, David_B wrote:
Here's a piccie of what Banbury was like in 2004 - my boat is the
first on left hand side.

https://ibb.co/XYBwqqv

Sorry about that! ;-)


Yeah I wondered where the image link was.

Presumably you mean the first 'whole' boat on LHS ?

Nice pic, niceÂ* boats. Great sense of depth. I think I would find the
mentioned faux '3D' effect detracting from it.

geoff

Malicious link is blocked ... Kaspersky

Please post a screenshot, Eric.

Perhaps Kaspersky is mistaken?

Wasn't a problem at all.

Hello John

Will you please clarify? The link I posted https://ibb.co/XYBwqqv is not
malicious - not according to VirusTotal anyway!

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/7...c9e2/detection


See https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Public/Malicious.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/06/2020 1:05 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 10:23:57 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 6/6/20 PDT 5:42 AM, David_B wrote:
On 06/06/2020 04:18, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:58:14 +1200, geoff
wrote:

On 5/06/2020 4:35 am, David_B wrote:
On 04/06/2020 17:32, David_B wrote:
Here's a piccie of what Banbury was like in 2004 - my boat is the
first on left hand side.

https://ibb.co/XYBwqqv

Sorry about that! ;-)


Yeah I wondered where the image link was.

Presumably you mean the first 'whole' boat on LHS ?

Nice pic, niceÂ* boats. Great sense of depth. I think I would find the
mentioned faux '3D' effect detracting from it.

geoff

Malicious link is blocked ... Kaspersky

Please post a screenshot, Eric.

Perhaps Kaspersky is mistaken?

Wasn't a problem at all.

The malicious link most likely not in David's image but bundled with
the compressed image downloaded with David's image.

McAfee never used to find these by Kaspersky has warned me of several.


No, it probably was a brain-fart by Kaspersky. Not uncommon.

Try it on a bunch of different scanners and take a majority-vote on the
warning's validity. In the meantime the rest of us will carry on happily
with our (presumably infected ;-o ) computers.

geoff

geoff

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Malicious link is blocked ... Kaspersky

Please post a screenshot, Eric.

Perhaps Kaspersky is mistaken?

Wasn't a problem at all.

The malicious link most likely not in David's image but bundled with
the compressed image downloaded with David's image.

unlike most of david's links, this one was surprisingly not malicious.

McAfee never used to find these by Kaspersky has warned me of several.

just because it warned you doesn't mean it's actually a problem.

it's clearly a false positive.

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 07:24:32 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 07/06/2020 00:33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 10:23:57 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 6/6/20 PDT 5:42 AM, David_B wrote:
On 06/06/2020 04:18, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:58:14 +1200, geoff
wrote:

On 5/06/2020 4:35 am, David_B wrote:
On 04/06/2020 17:32, David_B wrote:
Here's a piccie of what Banbury was like in 2004 - my boat is the
first on left hand side.

https://ibb.co/XYBwqqv

Sorry about that! ;-)


Yeah I wondered where the image link was.

Presumably you mean the first 'whole' boat on LHS ?

Nice pic, niceÂ* boats. Great sense of depth. I think I would find the
mentioned faux '3D' effect detracting from it.

geoff

Malicious link is blocked ... Kaspersky

Please post a screenshot, Eric.

See https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ejgecx8uk...nbury.jpg?dl=0

Perhaps Kaspersky is mistaken?

Wasn't a problem at all.

Thanks, Eric.

Please will you type out here the full name of the link being shown By
Kaspersky?

You know as much as I do. As you can see it's truncated.

If you wish to explore further yourself, simply copy/paste the link into
Virus Total - select 'URL', he-
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

Thanks

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 07:24:32 +0100, David_B wrote:
Please will you type out here the full name of the link being shown By
Kaspersky?

You know as much as I do. As you can see it's truncated.

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.

"David_B" wrote:
On 10/06/2020 20:35, Paul wrote:
David_B wrote:
On my old iMac, I downloaded and installed the 'Trial' version of
ClamXav. I then uninstalled it with the official uninstaller. I then
used the AppCleaner software - and it found all manner of 'stuff'
which ClamXav had left still installed.

My concern is that what is 'left behind' MAY be doing malicious things
- with the user of that computer being completely unaware of anything
untoward happening. The product developer refused to discuss this
possibility with me. :-(

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.