Screenconnect, Connectwise, Logmein Rescue, Teamviewer11, ShowMyPC, Microsoft Registartion Files

peterbaker

RumRat wrote: »

As I said, you have shown little actual knowledge about the subject. A trawl around Google is about all you are up to. You certainly haven't ever read any Operations manuals.
I knew you couldn't end your contribution to the thread, your self inflated ego wouldn't allow that.
:rotfl:

You now even dismiss ICAO missives as if there is something in respected airline operations manuals which dilutes the main strong message. There isn't, people. He is deliberately misleading you. GPWS WARNINGS MUST NEVER BE IGNORED. What a real pilot immediately does when he or she has immediately noted (never ignored) a robust real-time cockpit warning like that, and why any preference to continuing an approach has to be absolutely watertight justified according to extremely strict SOP's which cannot be debatedin the moment, else at risk of danger of death of all on board, is not the province of this thread.

RumRat, you have realised now that your language was completely wrong and are doing a Rudi Guliani by now effectively bleating "When I said ignore, I did not exactly mean ignore"

To you, the truth is not the truth, is it?

So hear ye hear ye, here is the general broadcast message purpose of this thread again, because some people are intent on it not reaching its intended audience:

We need far more real-time systems warnings in our home computers to warn of the presence of remote control software, and what it can do (because the extreme and dangerous extended functionality of these free off the shelf 'tech support' solutions is way outside most people's imaginations). I have compared the needed warnings with one type of warning found in complex aircraft as it is a highly respected type of warning - GPWS - automated Ground Proximity Warning Systems shout "PULL UP! PULL UP!" when in a dangerous configuration near the ground, and real commercial pilots take instant note of such - they do not ignore it or click through it just when they feel like it - they should get an instant and potent countermand query from their co-pilot if they do.

There are none so blind as will not see ... especially those who would ignore their only means of seeing, and yours too if you are an unwitting passenger to their view.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

AndyPix

Someone please lock this thread (Cornucopia ?)


Everyone has had their say and stated their views , now it has decended into the OP looking for an arguement about any subject he can get a rise from ..


Massive long posts about flying planes on a thread about remote tools/antivirus?

It still has the potential to be of use to future readers - but only just

peterbaker

Respectfully, I think sometimesyou need to look in the mirror, AndyPix, and ask yourself why you just smeared me unnecessarily yet again. Sure I need to sometimes or often even, question myself, and I am sorry that my style tends to long posts which frustrate techies and other sorts who just come here for a excellent read or entertainment. I don't have the time both to write all this stuff and to perfect it. Sorry. The message I urge is however very clear, isn't it?

The fool who picked the wrong person to argue against about my good aviation analogy for a solution to the whole issue I raised in this thread is wholly responsible for trying to pull the thread off track. I have probably forgotten more about the subject than the fool will ever learn.

My suggestion of the GPWS type of strong warning on home computers for the presence of remote control softwares was well chosen as it is one that is easily understood by ordinary people who have seen enough movies and documentaries to know exactly what I mean. As a standardised type of very serious automated warning, it is one that most definitely will never be easily dismissed by a simple "OK to that", and I believe you do understand the analogy perfectly.

How such a very serious standardised warning is created, designed, accepted, reviewed in the light of new environmental risk and cnstantly improved in the world of home computers might ultimately be up to guys like you if you can be persuaded that it is needed. If guys like you cannot be persuaded then we are back in the realms of "there are none so blind as those who will not see", because the whole purpose of that old adage is to rue the fact that groups of persons who should know better than any and have extensive knowledge of the great risk that exists, are the ones who deliberately ignore it, and worse than that even, seem to deny it on behalf of the public at large. That would be a great pity.

The fool tried to ridicule my warning and me personally constantly, added nothing to the public good, and has failed spectacularly in whatever it is that he gets off on.

So yes, I agree the thread can be closed and future readers can get from it what they will, but let's not let the fool have the last word. I do not mind who else does, and particularly, out of respect for your long-standing contributions to this sub-forum, I do not mind if you do, but please do not end it with a smear upon me, the OP and messenger, and please don't play down or obfuscate the ridiculously powerful functionality in the free remote control softwares which most windows users even those who have installed it on a friend's say so, cannot even imagine exists. Straight out of the box you can work on a victim's remote computer from anywhere in the world, wake the computer in the middle of the night and blank the screen to hide what you are doing, restart it at will, intercept and replay password input and all manner of things no ordinary user could imagine they gave you permission to do even if you are their real friend.

Thank you.

onomatopoeia99

peterbaker wrote: »

My message and warning about these softwares is much more important than the fact it bores people like you. The warnings aren't intended for you. Yes they may cause you to have to explain why you are countenancing software which straight out of the box, or should I say instant free download, allows you to gain access through otherwise locked doors, and creep in and put your hands under someone else's computer covers at night when they are asleep pretty much untraced and anonymously.

It doesn't do any of that though.

If I download (say) teamviewer on a computer, I cannot use it to gain access to anyone else's computer, unless they specifically open the locked door and give me permission. The closest "non techie" analogy I can offer (as so many people come on here and ask for deeply technical things to be explained in a way a "non techie" can understand) is them cutting a set of keys to their front door, handing them to me and telling me the code for their burglar alarm.

The locksmith cutting the spare set of keys will not say "make sure you only give these to people you trust" at the time they do it, nor ask "you know these could be used to get into your house and steal stuff, are you really sure you want a spare set of keys?"

peterbaker

onomatopoeia99, your locksmith analogy ... it's not a very secure one ... with locks, a bit like analogies, it's often a question of quality.

onomatopoeia99 wrote:

The locksmith cutting the spare set of keys will not say "make sure you only give these to people you trust" at the time they do it, nor ask "you know these could be used to get into your house and steal stuff, are you really sure you want a spare set of keys?"

Firstly,when discussing household locks, you are talking about a practical sort of risk which pretty much any mere computer user could argue as well (or as inexpertly) as a computer expert might argue about household locks. Householders generally know the risks of insecure houses. They don't need to be warned in quite the same way as they need to be warned about something only 1 in a thousand might correctly list the top-ten most powerful functions available to the tech support person in possession of your TeamViewer 'keys' for example.

There is no question that lack of control of one's actual physical metal lock keys - the ones which fit one's actual external final exit door locks - are a subject every single houseowner could discuss at your level.

Many might perhaps not be able to describe BS3621, but they would know that handing out keys willy nilly or keeping spares them in insecure places is not very sensible. It's obviously risky, and their insurer might not be too pleased if they knew about it.

Now back to the subject at hand. Where does the same person, this time a computer user, keep the digital keys you are talking about? In a box perhaps? No? Ask them. Their first response will likely be "What keys are you talking about?" or "Oh you mean that long number that appeared when I installed the TeamViewer thing like you told me to? You only asked me once. Do you need it again now? IIRC you asked me for the thing below it - you know, the code which is sometimes the same and sometimes it changes?"

Their next question might be "So what am I supposed to do with them?" (because no-one told them). I could go on, couldn't I, because no-one warned them that the things (that ID and the remarkably short auto-generated password) were perhaps more important even than their house keys. Are Bank User ID's important to keep secret? I thought actually they didn't matter too much ... afterall, don't most people let their computer store the ID so we don't have to bother to type it when we login? Not like a housekey, eh?

Yet with Teamviewer, in moments the PC could become a bug, a secret surveillance camera and microphone, and it could collect keystrokes and passwords i.e. the keys to everything including the bank account? Even if someone did get into your house while you were there you'd see what they were up to, wouldn't you?

Do most TeamViewer users know you can blank their screen at will and stop their computer responding to their mouse and keyboard just like that, whilst you can see the screen remotely and work undetected on any part of the PC? I think very few know that. I think very few know that you can make their computer reboot at any time, and when they login again you can intercept their password - which they might also happen to be using for something else - that'd be a bit unfortunate if they were connected to a scammer, now wouldn't it? Is user ignorance bliss? For whom?

Your analogy also fails somewhat on the quality front. Persons who know a little about household security and value their possessions may well spend a bit more on locks. You won't find any locksmith copying a Banham key.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

RumRat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTEBryjT9RM
Interesting from about 3.50 in....Or not....:)

peterbaker

RumRat wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTEBryjT9RM
Interesting from about 3.50 in....

You have found a Youtube video with a real-time GPWS warning, thank you RumRat. Not sure what you found particularly interesting at 3:50 in? What is much more interesting is that someone on the ball has commented about the Polish CFIT air disaster which cost Poland their president and his wife, plus 94 others in 2010, and there are several other decent comments mixed in with the less notable ones.

So, armed with that, try this other Youtube recording made on a very murky day, and maybe start approx 18 minutes in (and do note the last few seconds of the recording are not for the squeamish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FrE0fwRMeU

These warning systems are designed very carefully for a reason. They must never be ignored or dismissed out of hand, and that is exactly the sort of warning it is about time we had carefully created and introduced for the instant flagging of the presence of remote control softwares on home computers. If we had them already (and GPWS wasn't introduced until 70 years after the Wright Brothers first flew the Wright Flyer) and you are trained to know exactly what the computer is doing and what you must do, you would never ignore a remote control software warning. You would first be 100% sure you and your co-pilot were in control of your whole situation, as opposed to the remote control software being in charge, and then acknowledge the warning and proceed professionally. If a mere user (not a professional) is sat in the remote right hand seat and asks you what the suggested warning means, and why he can't turn the flippin' thing off, you bloody well immediately go around, and then tell them the reason for the warning in as much detail as you can get them to assimilate. Only then do you obtain their confirmation to proceed and show them the way to safely circumvent the warning and configure the software so the user is fully aware of what powerful features are switched on or off (which will not be a simple "OK to that", nor a command for Gear Down at 4:02 as if no warning had arisen!). A sunny day doesn't shine light on what is going on inside a computer, and it isn't a guarantee of safety in an aircraft sounding GPWS either!

It isn't 70 years just yet since Bill Gates & Co invented Windows, but it is well nigh 150 years since the death of Charles Babbage.
Time methinks for much better warnings of what perils can beset ordinary computer users unwittingly exposing themselves to untold risks of remote control softwares acting on the massive computing power we each have on our desks and in our pockets.

Remember smartphones may be to some extent also be controlled by versions of the same brand of remote control software e.g. TeamViewer Quick Support? I haven't tried it that way round yet i.e. remote PC viewing what's on the screen of my iPhone. But if you didn't know your phone could possibly be taken over or at least surveilled in this way, you might begin to ask yourself is your smartphone always locked? Where do you leave it when you sleep/are down the pub having a good time?

onomatopoeia99

peterbaker wrote: »

Their next question might be "So what am I supposed to do with them?"

"Treat them like the keys to your house." Simple, non-technical language that everyone should understand, given what you said about everyone knowing about security of house keys in the masses of text I didn't quote.

There is a whole other debate to be had about people that buy extraordinarily complex and powerful technical devices that they understand less than a tenth of one percent of what it can do or how to do it, then go on to use them without investing any training for themselves whatsoever, then complain that they don't understand things they have made no effort to learn.

peterbaker

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

"Treat them like the keys to your house." Simple, non-technical language that everyone should understand, given what you said about everyone knowing about security of house keys in the masses of text I didn't quote.

Indeed, so how do you plant that idea in the minds of the masses given that these keys are't called keys, they aren't really ever handed over to the user, they just sit in TeamViewer once it is installed and the user doesn't go there to find them unless directed. They aren't metal with holes in so won't fit on a key ring, and anyway they change at odd times, and uncannily your friend with a key doesn't even need one to get in most of the time? Perhaps it's a key, but not as we know it, Jim?

If you have ever studied selling or management of people you will know that you can't just plant an idea and tell someone that it is now theirs so they must act accordingly. The process of their assimilation of such skill and knowledge and their ability to make a clear decision varies tremendously according to who you are, who they are, how much you are prepared to invest in their proper training, and of course the task at hand which was your idea not theirs.

There is a whole other debate to be had about people that buy extraordinarily complex and powerful technical devices that they understand less than a tenth of one percent of what it can do or how to do it, then go on to use them without investing any training for themselves whatsoever, then complain that they don't understand things they have made no effort to learn.

Do you understand more than 10% of what is possible in Microsoft Word? Have you invested any time training to find out more about the 90% you and most others generally don't know about, because you've never needed to us that 90% (which as you probably know is a different 90% for every Word user:p)?

Perhaps it is not unlike you picking a snippet to comment upon, but not quoting the masses of text you did not engage with yet!

Do TeamViewer users complain about what they don't know about its extraordinary hidden functionality? Do motorists complain about what they don't know about the workings of their car? Do air passengers complain about what they don't know about GPWS? No, they rely upon a vague understanding that aviation is generally very safe, and that there is an array of sophisticated warning systems overseeing things at the pointy end. Plus they rightly assume that the professionals who design them ensure ways to make the warning systems interface unambiguously with the right highly trained and disciplined people at the right time. Sadly that last one doesn't happen yet with remote control softwares on home computers...Just saying