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

debitcardmayhem

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

Truth be known if people spend about £60 for a BT8500 or equivalent phone then they won't be vulnerable to cold callers, scammers don't leave messages , people not in phone "book" have to announce who they are, but they never do. I never talk on the phone now because no one likes me, I really miss the interaction with people trying to take my pension and double it, tell me my bank account is being used fraudulently, or just to sell their wares. I particularly miss the ones who call about my windows problems and then don't listen when I tell that my windows are draughty.


Perhaps the OP ought to put himself on the after dinner speakers list and offer advice about how to avoid scammers rather than throw his verbosity, on a public forum, at safe "softwares" which have a perfectly valid use.

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

I doubt that anyone here is ridiculing the victim, just your rose tinted glasses thinking that your points are valid and everyone else has a "questionable attitude". Stop and think , then stop and think again.

And then in your response to tempus_fugit you go on to say this.....

peterbaker wrote: »

Wrong again. The computer doesn't contain valuables in the normal case. It contains an operating system that can be used to install malicious software that ultimately can be used to trick you into letting a stranger into ... wait for it ... no, not your house but your bloody bank, masquerading quite effectively as you! That's because online banking doesn't involve identified humans in transactions - it lets anyone transact in your name who is clever enough to overcome the security protocols, one way or another.

Anyone who can still be educated is less likely to be currently vulnerable. Anyone who still has "nous" can be taught to spell it without an e on the end. But anyone who struggles with new concepts will especially struggle to understand and assimilate complex warnings that mix up messages like "your computer is safe to use" and "when a stranger calls and tells you to switch it on, don't" and "no they wont steal the computer" and "they will try to get internet access to your bank account" ... such things do not compute to rather too many vulnerable internet banking users.

Far better that instant warbnings appear and make it difficult to proceed with installing remote control software without express warnings about scammers regularly using it.

That works for you and yours (currently) but why do you choose to imprint that kind of profile of only modest vulnerability upon everyone else including the truly vulnerable when you already know you and your elderly relatives have above average understanding of how to protect yourselves and that most others don't share your level of understanding?

You appear to be doing no educating on the subject here in the forum (I don't believe you counsel your friends and relatives to stay behind locked doors and not answer the phone). Rather you seem more to be simply asserting that you and yours are alright, Jack, and no-one you know needs any warnings, or have I got that wrong?

Appears to me that you are just being an antagonist get a life .... I am out of this , oh and I won't report your behaviour , I experienced the wrath of the "moderators/forum police" for making light of the fact that I have suffered a stroke and that "may upset others," so carry on being yourself.

peterbaker

So good we saw it twice:

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

Perhaps the OP ought to put himself on the after dinner speakers list and offer advice about how to avoid scammers rather than throw his verbosity, on a public forum, at safe "softwares" which have a perfectly valid use.

Oh but wait, ShowmyPC.com already do warn potential victims who are about to download their "perfectly safe softwares" that they are, er ... not safe when in the hands of scammers. Kitchen knives also have a perfectly valid use, but they ain't knowingly sold to under 18s.

Inner city streets and car parks are littered with nitrous oxide cannisters sold for the perfectly valid use of charging a pressurised cream dispenser in catering. Is that another growing problem in society where we should be educating victims of hit and runs to stay away from cars being driven erratically by drivers under the influence of the gas? Or should some other intervention be forced upon the manufacturer of the dodgy item in that case too?

Lorian

#Anti Remote Control
$wshell = New-Object -ComObject Wscript.Shell

while ($true)
{
$APPS=Get-ItemProperty HKLM:\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\* | Select-Object DisplayName, InstallDate
Foreach ($APP in $APPS)
{
if ($APP.DisplayName -like "*showmypc*")
{
$wshell.Popup("Caution Remote Comtrol Software Installed contact Peter Baker",0,"Done",0x1)

}
}
start-sleep -second 60 # wait a minute
}

debitcardmayhem

peterbaker wrote: »

So good we saw it twice:

Oh but wait, ShowmyPC.com already do warn potential victims who are about to download their "perfectly safe softwares" that they are, er ... not safe when in the hands of scammers. Kitchen knives also have a perfectly valid use, but they ain't knowingly sold to under 18s.

Inner city streets and car parks are littered with nitrous oxide cannisters sold for the perfectly valid use of charging a pressurised cream dispenser in catering. Is that another growing problem in society where we should be educating victims of hit and runs to stay away from cars being driven erratically by drivers under the influence of the gas? Or should some other intervention be forced upon the manufacturer of the dodgy item in that case too?

Last chance sherlock click on this which is from ShowmyPC http://www.zipcruncher.com/download_page/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqrj_nM7t3AIVYqNRCh04jg85EAEYASAAEgIPGfD_BwE# which is showmypc without the warning you really are deluded aren't you. Now I am out

peterbaker

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

Last chance sherlock click on this which is from ShowmyPC http://www.zipcruncher.com/download_page/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqrj_nM7t3AIVYqNRCh04jg85EAEYASAAEgIPGfD_BwE# which is showmypc without the warning you really are deluded aren't you. Now I am out

Yes they should not allow their software to be obtainable from third party sites, should they, but try telling their marketing director that! However, I doubt a scammer would ask a victim to go to zipcruncher unless he or she really had to ... doesn't assist in keeping up the pretence - zipcruncher doesn't sound very official does it?

Truth be known if people spend about £60 for a BT8500 or equivalent phone then they won't be vulnerable to cold callers, scammers don't leave messages , people not in phone "book" have to announce who they are, but they never do.

I was actually going to say, nice idea - for those who still have landlines (which I appreciate includes many elderly customers). However, I have not had a landline for 10 years (moneysaving reasons ), and nor coincidentally has the 76 year old victim I mentioned. She was called on her mobile.

Is there any similar blocker for mobiles?

wongataa

Peter Baker,


This sort of issues is the same as the reports yesterday about how much money has been fraudulently taken from pensions. In those cases someone persuaded the victims to give them their pension money. Only in those cases no computer was involved. In the case you are complaining about a cold caller persuaded the victim to give them access to their computer so they could get the money.


In both cases the problem is that a caller persuaded the victim to give them access to their money. We can see that people really need to be less trusting of callers, especially where money could be involved. These people are skilled at persuading people to do what they want. It is not always easy to not fall for the scam. People who can persuade people to do what they want will be able to get them to go past any warnings when installing software. They already do this.

AndyPix

My last word on the subject Peterbaker - as despite your hostile attitude i still believe you simply want to help your friend and similar vulnerable people - is this ..


If you want to be of help, then instead of flogging this dead horse (which is very dead for the many reasons that have been given to you but you refuse to listen), then the best thing you can do is instruct anybody who will listen, that IF SOMEBODY CALLS YOU, AND ASKS YOU TO INSTALL *ANYTHING* THEN HANG UP THE PHONE ..


Thats it, no need for warnings on remote control software, because if the person has been tricked into installing something then its game over.
If its not official remote control software then its a remote access trojan (virus) which achieves the same results.


Please just accept this - you are being told by knowledgable people who feel your pain but are trying to explain to you how you are wrong.


So instread of making pointless arguements on here, that black is white, be of some use and do the above.


Again, in the vague hope it actually goes in this time ..


If someone calls you, and asks you to install ANYTHING on your computer then it is definitely a scam.

agrinnall

tempus_fugit wrote: »

Very patronising. You don't know who I know and who I don't.

It's a tactic he employs when he knows he's losing the argument, I complained (in the thread, not to MSE) about it in another thread but clearly to no effect.

peterbaker

AndyPix wrote:

If someone calls you, and asks you to install ANYTHING on your computer then it is definitely a scam.

AndyPix, I can scarcely believe you are using the term "black and white". I know we are in a Techie forum here, but the scam problem is never black and white. That is why it is a dangerous problem where flags should be made to appear at every potential wrong turn.

Your use of the term "game over" is also unhelpful in security terms. I think I have seen you use it twice now? Have you not in your gameplays ever made your way into some ancient crusader temple in search of the grail or into some pyramid full of deadly obstacles, successfully grabbed your prize only to find you as the intruder have lost your head and your prize on the way out?

I started formally advising on security four decades ago i.e. I signed my name to security recommendations and requirements which were formally advised to clients. That advice included actions which acknowledged that an intruder might get in, but made it unlikely that they could easily get out with what they came for. Some people keep shotguns by their beds for such events! Your game over assertion is with all due respect unhelpful. The best protection against scammers is to cause them to have no solution as to what to say next. Vulnerable computer users need prompting to be able to protect themselves during the course of the scam. No amount of pre-warning will help them if they have already been taken in sufficiently to be sat at their computer during the call. Only the computer can help them from that point.

I started with computers five decades ago around the time Armstrong and Aldrin touched down on the moon. That was a time when everything that came out of Earth based computers that wasn't punched tape seemed alternately green and white!

Security is never black and white. If someone is determined to get in to where they are not supposed to be, then chances are they will, and in this day and age, chances are they'll never be detected and prosecuted.

That's why boiler room fraudsters on a dull day at the office will amuse themselves by calling up bank fraud departments and goading them with "catch-me-if-you-can" teases. Surely you know this?

I am calling for some lobbying of manufacturers of anti-virus programs to flag the existence of any process or executable code that can permit remote access to our PCs, to at least the same level of warning as Adware attracts.

I am also calling for the manufacturers of remote control softwares such as the ones listed in the title of this thread to make it more difficult to download their software without a darned good attempt by the manufacturer at getting the message across that if they are trying to download it because someone has called them and is on the line urging them to do it, they should immediately suspect foul play, not continue, and hang up.

I don't doubt that some people like tempus-fugit are able to educate the uninitiated especially those who retain a bit of technical nous, and others will be able to educate themselves by general reading, but let's face it, a scattergun approach to solving a problem solely using ill-defined, undetermined "education" of that unprompted nature upon the rest of the vulnerable in this world is hardly going to be a idea marketing message triumph, now is it?

In your face official warnings in clear language will undoubtedly work best at the point a potential victim is actually engaged with their attacker.

The attacker cannot control the mind of their victim completely - the best they can do is to try to steer an easy no fuss course to gaining access, and to smoothly deflect any objections from their victim as they arise. The taller the obstacles blocking their planned easy attack route, the better. That there should be no obstacles to inadvertently allowing remote control access beyond the mind of the potential victim is an absolutely crazy situation.

You urge me to put myself into your idea of a real world.

I can tell you that I frequently get asked to assist with PCs that have stopped working the way their owners expect day in day out. I have never attempted to do that via remote control software.

I have worked alongside technical support guys, and I get that in the corporate environment, remote control software is an expected support tool to provide rapid no fuss support to executives in far flung places who need their machine working in five minutes time to run an important presentation or similar. I have been on the receiving end of a request like that so I do get how useful the softwares can be in the right hands. But seriously, normal potentially vulnerable people do not need their helpers to use remote control software. It is a obvious boon to some, and it's great if your regular helper does know how to use remote control softwares and takes it upon themselves to keep you protected.

However, let's be honest, it would be a small price for you and the helper to pay to have to negotiate warnings from your antivirus and the software provider before you can get started on fixing your computer, especially if those warnings are intended to slow down scammers and to increase chances of the scam being recognised by a victim waking up to the danger before it has passed the point of no likely return. The real world needs constant prompts of the dangers. Vulnerable eBanking customers generally do not sit in classrooms awaiting a fine education, financial, technical or otherwise, nor do they self-discipline themselves to read widely and research the changes to the real world they live in. Many of us realised our deficiencies when we found ourselves frustrated by the lack of intuitive routes to programming our VCR machines! Few of us bothered to master it before VCRs became obsolete!

No, I am strongly arguing with good reason, that vulnerable eBanking customers need constant prompts from all angles whilst sat at their computers that warn of the dangers in specific terms. If Google can arrange for us to be constantly bombarded by individually targeted marketing messages, then antivirus, remote control software manufacturers, and even Microsoft and banks can do much better to keep us alert at every turn when we stray to close to the edges of cliffs such as happens in a scam call if we actually do sit at our computer during the call. I mean, which eBanking login routine prompts you before you login and asks, "Was this login attempt prompted by someone you are currently speaking to on the phone? Are you absolutely sure they are not a technical support confidence trickster?"

Smokers didn't really want to be faced with warning messages on cigarette packets, but it is fast getting to the stage where we perhaps need mandatory health warnings to pop up in the danger areas we venture into on our computers.

Antivirus companies already achieve it easily when they want to.

As for other commentators who just come here to insult the messenger, I guess they will continue to trawl threads and do their thing. I honestly don't know what public good they think they do.

AndyPix

Yes - yes it is black and white .


If you install something on the instruction of someone on the phone you are doomed.(black)


If you dont then they cant do anything.(white)


It is a do or dont situation - binary


They cant sneak this stuff onto your machine, they have to trick you into installing it.
They dont install it - YOU do, they trick you into doing so


It is called social engineering.


Simply telling everyone who will listen not to install anything atall at the say so of a voice on the phone is what is needed.


Why cant you understand this ???


If the remote tools came with warnings then the scammers would either socially engineer the situation to say something like " Now, you will see a warning on your screen but just click ok to that" or would , like i said, use a remote access trojan instead ..


Look , I get your good intentions here but what you are suggesting is pointless - totally pointless
Save your breath on this - it is a non starter, and concentrate on telling people not to install ANYTHING at the say so of a voice on the phone


(cant believe im still replying to this)