Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 28th Jul 18, 10:28 AM
    • 2,102Posts
    • 824Thanks
    peterbaker
    Screenconnect, Connectwise, Logmein Rescue, Teamviewer11, ShowMyPC, Microsoft Registartion Files
    • #1
    • 28th Jul 18, 10:28 AM
    Screenconnect, Connectwise, Logmein Rescue, Teamviewer11, ShowMyPC, Microsoft Registartion Files 28th Jul 18 at 10:28 AM
    Anyone seen evidence of Screenconnect, Connectwise, Logmein Rescue, Teamviewer11, ShowMyPC, Microsoft Registartion Files on their PC?

    The main brand antivirus programs seemingly don't report their existence.
Page 4
    • almillar
    • By almillar 9th Aug 18, 12:59 PM
    • 7,473 Posts
    • 3,058 Thanks
    almillar
    I didn't realise I'd called for any super duper warning system, just a basic warning similar to an "Adware - possible Malware Detected" pop up dialog ,,,
    I was being sarcastic, it's not super duper at all, and I demonstrated to you how a scammer could remove the warning from their own dodgy version of the software, or just brush it off to a non-tech-savvy victim.

    Every ounce of energy you're putting into wanting to punish legitimate software publishers, should instead be put into educating users instead. Though if they are as good at listening as you are, it'll take a lot of energy.
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 12th Aug 18, 12:37 AM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 824 Thanks
    peterbaker
    I received a message yesterday from the forum team advising me that they had put some energy into editing one of my earlier posts in this thread. Apparently I had posted something inappropriate which offended someone. I guess that means someone had put their energy into notifying the MSE team that they had been offended.

    I am quite appalled by the way so many Techie knowledgeable posters use their energyies to pile in to denigrate a quite justifiable warning that remote control software is being typically used surreptitiously during calls by telephone scammers pretending to be tech support of one kind or another. I am further apalled that instead, these same posters wish to assert to MSE'ers at large, that the listed softwares are perfectly normally present on computers and so no warning is required, just techie type knowledge which you get by undergoing the necessary "education". Where you get it is anyone's guess - no-one is offering, least of all the forum.

    I come here with good intention, and get told I don't know how remote control softwares work - why do I need to know chapter and verse on that? I have used a huge number of different tools over decades on PCs, often for very complex projects. When I need to understand them to the nth degree, I do thanks. I don't need to understand every trick and turn in the listed softwares in the title of this thread to know they were all used to perpitrate a fraud against an innocent and intelligent kind-hearted 76 year old woman who did nothing more than answer the phone and believe that the caller was also kind-hearted and calling officially from Microsoft.

    I also get told I am making a fool of myself by banging this drum continuously. Fantastic news. Thanks very much, but news for you - I shall be the sole judge of that, MSE willing.

    I can see all the softwares listed in the thread title were applied for / downloaded / access permitted on the victims machine, and were used during the particular scam I investigated. So my thread is based on true events. It is not some fiction or figment of someone's imagination. Over eight thousand quid went missing in the space of one telephone call with no form-filling or signatures necessary - pension scammers eat your heart out - you are in the wrong scamming business.

    It doesn't matter exactly how the softwares ended up being used, but what does matter is they all did get used without the victim realising they were being used to scam her, and the victim is no idiot. What the differences are between each of the listed softwares is of only passing interest for some of the software manufacturers and others to think about.

    These multiple software websites were not accessed as decoys for amateur sleuths like me to pick up the trail of the scammers, nor were they used for harmless fun. They had not been installed or used previously by the victim so that a techie neighbour might sit at his or her home and login to his helpless neighbour's PC to fix it whilst it was unattended. The victim in the case I worked on certainly did not authorise the purchase of premium remote control software licences, yet her current account was used to fund two such licences and yes, despite the scoffing in this thread, the scammers did buy the heavyweight software with money from the victims account rather than just pocket that money and run. That's because they used it on their next victims.

    The victim in my case did not deliberately open her computer up to any kind of hacking, but hacked she was and the trail of hacking included every software mentioned in the title of this thread.

    MSE'ers generally might like to take good note, and whether or not they feel confident they aren't going to fall for a Tech Support Scam themselves, I urge that they redouble their efforts to warn vulnerable neighbours who are computer users but may be of the trusting kind-hearted type who haven't a clue that such a risk ever did exist, or that it still very much does exist in ever more sophisticated form.

    If any poster seriously wishes to reassert here in a public forum that no real-time warning is necessary about the sudden appearance of any of these softwares on a PC, especially all in one session, then you must surely also explain properly why it is ok for a normal Windows 10 system, including Windows Defender, to behave so passively, and for Windows 10 compatible third party softwares to also behave so passively in such a way as to allow a 76 year old woman to be progressively scammed using them without having a clue what is being perpitrated against her.

    I also have some further news for smart-Alecs:

    I note that ShowmyPC.com has actually started to put a warning on their website behind their Free Download link, about recent reports of their software being used for malicious purposes, although I do not consider the route to that warning page from their homepage, where the free download link sits, to be a particularly good one. It is still too easy to visit their homepage and to proceed to download the software fast after quickly clicking the Continue link which bypasses the warning.

    The SHowmyPC.com two-liner in red on their warning page should actually be in your face on the homepage:
    Some examples of scam phone calls include callers claiming to be tech support specialists, or claiming to be from known companies such as Microsoft. They will inform you of potential issues on your computer and offer to fix it by asking you to grant them access to your computer.

    It just so happens that ShowmyPC was the first in the line of webpages the victim was directed to when the scammer got into his stride; ShowmyPC - the universal tin-opener of preference to any self-respecting scammer perhaps? Once the lid is off, that's when the other softwares get introduced if the victim is still sitting oblivious at their screen and following the kind-hearted patient scammer's advice as best he or she can, all the time believing the computer has been hacked ... and by the time Showmy PC is installed, of course it now has been.

    Now do any of you gurus now concur that there is a risk that should be flagged? Or are ShowmyPC making fools of themselves also, because the other software houses still aren't issuing warnings ?
    Last edited by peterbaker; 12-08-2018 at 1:32 AM.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 14th Aug 18, 12:45 PM
    • 7,473 Posts
    • 3,058 Thanks
    almillar
    I guess that means someone had put their energy into notifying the MSE team that they had been offended.
    You haven't offended me and I haven't reported you.

    just techie type knowledge which you get by undergoing the necessary "education". Where you get it is anyone's guess - no-one is offering, least of all the forum.
    It's not techie type knowledge. And we bang on about it all the time here. We can't actually enter peoples' homes and tell them not to pick up the phone, speak to the person, or install anything they're asked to.

    I come here with good intention
    I don't doubt that.

    an innocent and intelligent kind-hearted 76 year old woman who did nothing more than answer the phone and believe that the caller was also kind-hearted and calling officially from Microsoft.
    This was the mistake, you see. Stop banging on about remote desktop software. Start banging on that people shouldn't believe calls from 'Microsoft', 'BT', 'AOL' 'your ISP', 'your bank', 'DHL' etc. If people, non-techie people, follow this advice, they never need to FIND OUT what remote desktop software is, nor why it can be dangerous.
    You're letting the criminal in through the open front door, and telling people to hide their car keys. You should be telling them to lock the front door instead!

    I also get told I am making a fool of myself by banging this drum continuously. Fantastic news. Thanks very much, but news for you - I shall be the sole judge of that, MSE willing.
    You're on an open forum, so no, you won't. Why don't you have another read at the whole thread. You've been told, politely and impolitely, why your idea is no good. You refuse to accept this. Do you accept the idea of democracy or peer review?

    The victim in my case did not deliberately open her computer up to any kind of hacking, but hacked she was and the trail of hacking included every software mentioned in the title of this thread.
    She doesn't know it, but she did. She did. She did....

    MSE'ers generally might like to take good note, and whether or not they feel confident they aren't going to fall for a Tech Support Scam themselves, I urge that they redouble their efforts to warn vulnerable neighbours who are computer users but may be of the trusting kind-hearted type who haven't a clue that such a risk ever did exist, or that it still very much does exist in ever more sophisticated form.
    Good call. Tell them not to trust people who call them.

    to reassert here in a public forum that no real-time warning is necessary about the sudden appearance of any of these softwares on a PC, especially all in one session
    Do you ever see the screen go dim, a small window in the middle? It's asking if you want to install something, what it is, and who the publisher is. And it tells you that installing things can be dangerous. Your friend was probably just told to 'click yes' - We've been over this already. There are warnings, they can be bypassed. The warnings you propose, would also be bypassed, either technically or with 'smooth talking'.

    Now do any of you gurus now concur that there is a risk that should be flagged? Or are ShowmyPC making fools of themselves also, because the other software houses still aren't issuing warnings ?
    That's responsible of them. It's also no use to anyone being scammed as they won't get to read it. And it's not following the demands you made in your first post.

    Stop wasting time, the idea is dead.
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 14th Aug 18, 2:09 PM
    • 3,759 Posts
    • 3,074 Thanks
    AndyPix
    ^^ Really great post - however i doubt the OP will listen as it doesnt fit with his version of reality.
    I have accepted this and given up trying to explain - especially as his manner is somewhat hostile
    Running with scissors since 1978
    • tempus_fugit
    • By tempus_fugit 14th Aug 18, 6:36 PM
    • 466 Posts
    • 425 Thanks
    tempus_fugit
    This was the mistake, you see. Stop banging on about remote desktop software. Start banging on that people shouldn't believe calls from 'Microsoft', 'BT', 'AOL' 'your ISP', 'your bank', 'DHL' etc. If people, non-techie people, follow this advice, they never need to FIND OUT what remote desktop software is, nor why it can be dangerous.
    You're letting the criminal in through the open front door, and telling people to hide their car keys. You should be telling them to lock the front door instead!
    Originally posted by almillar
    ^^ This, absolutely, is it.
    Retired at age 56 after having "light bulb moment" due to reading MSE and its forums. Have been converted to the "budget to zero" concept and use YNAB for all monthly budgeting and long term goals.
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 14th Aug 18, 9:34 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 824 Thanks
    peterbaker
    My version of reality, AndyPix is pretty well founded. I get yours is different, and I get that mine is more caring of vulnerable computer users than yours. Almillar conceded that ShowmyPC are being responsible in acknowledging their software gets used for malicious purposes. I am being responsible in making sure that your view on this important subject does not predominate in this, your favourite "home ground" forum.

    You are deliberately diluting an important warning.

    This was the mistake, you see. Stop banging on about remote desktop software. Start banging on that people shouldn't believe calls from 'Microsoft', 'BT', 'AOL' 'your ISP', 'your bank', 'DHL' etc. If people, non-techie people, follow this advice, they never need to FIND OUT what remote desktop software is, nor why it can be dangerous.
    You're letting the criminal in through the open front door, and telling people to hide their car keys. You should be telling them to lock the front door instead!
    by almillar
    ^^ This, absolutely, is it.
    Originally posted by tempus_fugit
    Wrong. That analogy is extremely poorly chosen. Microsoft Tech Support Scam has nothing whatever to do with leaving a valuable item in an unlocked place where an anonymous stranger can quickly nip in and take the item without being noticed. In fact it is a totally useless analogy.

    You clearly do not understand the nature of typical human vulnerability or that generations before you naturally trust people who appear kind-hearted and who offer to help. God help some of you when you start getting confused and unsure of yourselves or how you cope with life's essential items like PCs are right now for internet banking.

    Are you aware of any of your own weaknesses whatsoever yet? I can tell you it does actually give you a better perspective on others' vulnerabilities once you are able to identify your own.

    I must presume that none of you self-contained fan-club of three or four have yet got to the stage with the inevitable loss of some of your marbles where you accept that you have started to more frequently forget things (including bloody great lists of household name brands that you scarcely use from one day to the next but which if someone says they work for one of them, you are instantly to put the phone down - wow ... I gave you Microsoft for ten, but you've added a whole new bunch ... is the world that bad? I had two calls from different people at my bank today ... should I have hung up?). You've an interesting take on these things, eh, almillar? Lock your doors and don't let anyone in? Is that it?

    So I guess you won't yet have needed to develop any coping strategies to patch up and repair some parts of your reduced memory? And none of you will admit to any sort of confusion about who to trust and who not to trust or indeed about what is normal to expect from a telephone caller and what is not normal? No of course not ... silly me for even thinking there might come a time.

    None of you have ever had to rely on someone else because you know you are not clever enough to understand or fix your own technical problems? Pardon? Not bloody likely, eh? Oh but I bet you have handed over your car keys a few times and trusted you'd get them back?

    Well then news for you again ... there are more of us out here who can admit to vulnerability than there are who can't or won't, and that means a few well placed responsible warnings when we are about to download unfamiliar dangerous software might help us keep out of trouble, even if they won't help you and your mates.

    ShowmyPC admits there is a problem of the exact type I am warning about.

    You guys can continue to knock it down it you like, but I consider you are being irresponsible if you do.

    So have any of you have ever investigated a PC where all the listed softwares in the title of this thread have appeared for the first time and all been used on the same morning to perpitrate a major fraud?

    I have. I am qualified to report it. What qualifies you to keep coming here and knocking the report and ridiculing the victim? Nothing but a questionable attitude it would seem ...
    Last edited by peterbaker; 14-08-2018 at 10:01 PM.
    • debitcardmayhem
    • By debitcardmayhem 14th Aug 18, 9:55 PM
    • 8,601 Posts
    • 6,498 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    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.
    • tempus_fugit
    • By tempus_fugit 14th Aug 18, 10:00 PM
    • 466 Posts
    • 425 Thanks
    tempus_fugit
    Wrong. That analogy is extremely poorly chosen. Microsoft Tech Support Scam has nothing whatever to do with leaving a valuable item in an unlocked place where an anonymous stranger can quickly nip in and take the item without being noticed. In fact it is totally useless analogy.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    I disagree, I think it is a good analogy, as what we are really talking about here is people being too trusting of strangers and allowing them into their computer or their home. It's the same thing really, both of them contain valuables that you do not just trust strangers with. The key is to educate them as to the ways of the modern world, not to put warnings on things to the effect that allowing strangers access to them could involve them in incurring losses.
    You clearly do not understand the nature of typical human vulnerability or that generations before you naturally trust people who appear kind-hearted and who offer to help.
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Very patronising. You don't know who I know and who I don't. We have elderly relatives and they are not susceptible to these scams, partly due to their own nouse and partly because we warn them of the types of scams going around.
    Retired at age 56 after having "light bulb moment" due to reading MSE and its forums. Have been converted to the "budget to zero" concept and use YNAB for all monthly budgeting and long term goals.
    • debitcardmayhem
    • By debitcardmayhem 14th Aug 18, 10:02 PM
    • 8,601 Posts
    • 6,498 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    ....snipped
    I have. I am qualified to report it. What qualifies you to keep coming here and knocking the report and ridiculing the victim? Nothing but a questionable attitude it would seem ...
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    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.
    • tempus_fugit
    • By tempus_fugit 14th Aug 18, 10:08 PM
    • 466 Posts
    • 425 Thanks
    tempus_fugit
    I had two calls from different people at my bank today ... should I have hung up?).
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Possibly. I have never had any calls from my bank, apart from automated calls relating to verification of transactions I have made on my account and setting up apps on my phone. We did once get a call from our insurance company. Before they would speak to us they asked us to verify our identity. As we did not initiate the call we said it was for THEM to verify their identity, not the other way round. As they would not do so, we ended the call.
    Lock your doors and don't let anyone in? Is that it?
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    That seems a very sensible strategy, yes. No-one needs to be let into my house unless I know who they are. I did once let a salesman in and regretted it as it took several hours to get rid of him. I'll never do that again.
    Retired at age 56 after having "light bulb moment" due to reading MSE and its forums. Have been converted to the "budget to zero" concept and use YNAB for all monthly budgeting and long term goals.
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 14th Aug 18, 10:37 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 824 Thanks
    peterbaker
    Possibly. I have never had any calls from my bank, apart from automated calls relating to verification of transactions I have made on my account and setting up apps on my phone. We did once get a call from our insurance company. Before they would speak to us they asked us to verify our identity. As we did not initiate the call we said it was for THEM to verify their identity, not the other way round. As they would not do so, we ended the call.
    Originally posted by tempus_fugit
    I had two humans call from Lloyds Bank today. I arranged for the first to hand over to the second and call back later which they did and left a message. There was no ID'ing by the first caller (probably a mistake but they hadn't divulged much personal data other than my name). I do understand your tactic of turning tables on the bank, and I have employed it myself to teach a bank a lesson in security more than once. But therein you have stumbled on part of the overall problem vulnerable customers face - they get confused by the very parties they ought to be able to trust - via inconsistency in security protocols used by banks and others, and as seen,via inconsistencies in warnings given my manufacturers of the dangers of their remote control softwares in the wrong hands.
    I disagree, I think it is a good analogy, as what we are really talking about here is people being too trusting of strangers and allowing them into their computer or their home. It's the same thing really, both of them contain valuables that you do not just trust strangers with.
    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, and fool the bank's computer that it is actually you doing the transacting!

    The key is to educate them as to the ways of the modern world, not to put warnings on things to the effect that allowing strangers access to them could involve them in incurring losses.
    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. They will be thinking "but how can they get into my bank?" Only at that stage might we get around to mentioning remote control software and many people will have completely lost the plot by then. Just as so many nay-sayers on this thread seem to have done. That's why the remote control warning should be very visible perhaps both on the manufacturers' download pages, but also via a pop up from antivirus programs that blocks access by default.

    Any genuine use of such softwares can be guided around the block by the genuine Tech Support person., but the warnings should be strong enough to cause a vulnerable person to stop and think and be unable to continue easily to install these softwares and/or allow the remote access in some other less obvious way.

    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.

    Very patronising. You don't know who I know and who I don't. We have elderly relatives and they are not susceptible to these scams, partly due to their own nouse and partly because we warn them of the types of scams going around.
    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?
    Last edited by peterbaker; 14-08-2018 at 10:59 PM.
    • debitcardmayhem
    • By debitcardmayhem 14th Aug 18, 10:54 PM
    • 8,601 Posts
    • 6,498 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    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.
    Originally posted by debitcardmayhem
    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.
    Originally posted by debitcardmayhem

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


    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?
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    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.
    Last edited by debitcardmayhem; 14-08-2018 at 10:58 PM.
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 14th Aug 18, 11:11 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 824 Thanks
    peterbaker
    So good we saw it twice:
    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.
    Originally posted by debitcardmayhem
    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 edited by peterbaker; 14-08-2018 at 11:17 PM.
    • Lorian
    • By Lorian 14th Aug 18, 11:17 PM
    • 4,465 Posts
    • 2,553 Thanks
    Lorian
    #Anti Remote Control
    $wshell = New-Object -ComObject Wscript.Shell

    while ($true)
    {
    $APPS=Get-ItemProperty HKLM:\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Uninstall\* | Select-Object DisplayName, InstallDate
    Foreach ($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
    • By debitcardmayhem 14th Aug 18, 11:46 PM
    • 8,601 Posts
    • 6,498 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    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?
    Originally posted by peterbaker
    Last chance sherlock click on this which is from ShowmyPC http://www.zipcruncher.com/download_page/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqrj_nM7t3AIVYqNRCh04jg85EAEYASA AEgIPGfD_BwE# which is showmypc without the warning you really are deluded aren't you. Now I am out
    • peterbaker
    • By peterbaker 14th Aug 18, 11:57 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 824 Thanks
    peterbaker
    Last chance sherlock click on this which is from ShowmyPC http://www.zipcruncher.com/download_page/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqrj_nM7t3AIVYqNRCh04jg85EAEYASA AEgIPGfD_BwE# which is showmypc without the warning you really are deluded aren't you. Now I am out
    Originally posted by debitcardmayhem
    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?
    Last edited by peterbaker; 15-08-2018 at 12:03 AM.
    • wongataa
    • By wongataa 15th Aug 18, 8:36 AM
    • 1,395 Posts
    • 834 Thanks
    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
    • By AndyPix 15th Aug 18, 8:53 AM
    • 3,759 Posts
    • 3,074 Thanks
    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.
    Running with scissors since 1978
    • agrinnall
    • By agrinnall 15th Aug 18, 9:01 AM
    • 20,709 Posts
    • 16,552 Thanks
    agrinnall
    Very patronising. You don't know who I know and who I don't.
    Originally posted by tempus_fugit

    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
    • By peterbaker 15th Aug 18, 11:54 AM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 824 Thanks
    peterbaker
    If someone calls you, and asks you to install ANYTHING on your computer then it is definitely a scam.
    by AndyPix
    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.
    Last edited by peterbaker; 15-08-2018 at 12:05 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

144Posts Today

1,625Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin