On Mar 12, 2026 at 9:49:38 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1g953FbuilU1@mid.individual.net>:
I prefer to verify.
No. You are not verifying anything. You are obsessing and attacking. Please stop.
On 12/03/2026 17:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 12, 2026 at 9:49:38 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1g953FbuilU1@mid.individual.net>:
<BIG SNIP>
I prefer to verify.
No. You are not verifying anything. You are obsessing and attacking. Please >> stop.
Brock,
You are leaning heavily on the "harassment" label to avoid addressing
the underlying security architecture.
Let’s look at the technical facts:
1. The Root of Trust (Developer ID and Gatekeeper)
You claim that because EtreCheck isn't in the App Store, the developer's standing there is irrelevant.
This is technically incorrect. Apple’s
security model for both Notarization and the App Store relies on the
same Developer ID certificate.
When a user launches an app, Gatekeeper performs a series of checks. It doesn't just look for a signature; it checks the Notarization ticket and queries Apple's OCSP (Online Certificate Status Protocol) servers to see
if the developer's certificate is still valid. If a developer is caught engaging in malicious activity or violates Apple's trust in a way that
leads to a certificate revocation, it doesn't just affect one app. The
moment that certificate is revoked, Gatekeeper will block every piece of standalone software they’ve released—including EtreCheck. They are intrinsically linked by the same cryptographic root of trust. Monitoring
a developer's standing across the ecosystem is a logical way to gauge
the reliability of their software.
2. Functional Access vs. Intent
You admitted that an app with permissions can do "all sorts of things."
We agree there. Where we differ is that you trust the developer's
intent, while I am looking at the functional capability.
If a program
has the "run" and "network" entitlements, the technical "access" exists. Pointing out this potential attack surface isn't an "attack" on the
author; it’s a basic risk assessment of the code and the "Hardened
Runtime" it operates within.
3. The Purpose of a Workshop
A technical newsgroup is exactly the place to analyze how software
interacts with our systems. If questioning a commercial product's "phoning-home" behaviour and its security lifecycle is "harmful" to you,
then you are valuing personal sentiment over technical transparency.
The developer is an active commercial entity on the ASC forums; his
products are not immune to critique.
I have no interest in his personal
choices regarding who he speaks to. I am interested in the code running
on my iMac. I will continue to "audit" and "verify" any software I
choose to use, as should anyone who values system integrity.
It is wrong, David. I say this as a friend. I do not think you mean to cause harm -- I do not think you understand how much your focus on this software, or
ClamXAV, is utter nonsense -- but it is. Even if something shows up in the future where it is found he is doing wrong, YOU will not be the one to find it. You are not helping anyone here. You are harming him and making a fool of yourself. Period.
On 12/03/2026 22:19, Brock McNuggets wrote:
<BIG SNIP AGAIN>
It is wrong, David. I say this as a friend. I do not think you mean to cause >> harm -- I do not think you understand how much your focus on this software, or
ClamXAV, is utter nonsense -- but it is. Even if something shows up in the >> future where it is found he is doing wrong, YOU will not be the one to find >> it. You are not helping anyone here. You are harming him and making a fool of
yourself. Period.
Brock,
You’ve made it clear that you prefer to focus on the person rather than
the protocol.
My "investigation" has yielded exactly what I sought: a clear
understanding of the cryptographic dependencies between a developer's standing with Apple and the viability of their software.
Whether you
label that "obsession" or "due diligence" doesn't change the technical reality of how Gatekeeper and OCSP function.
If you think technical scrutiny of a commercial product is "nonsense,"
we simply have different standards for system security. I’m happy to
leave the moralizing to you; I’ll stick to the technicals.
Rest easy — my "obsession" is with my own system's integrity, not the developer's personal feelings.
David--
On Mar 12, 2026 at 4:27:09 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1h0eeFfgrrU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/03/2026 22:19, Brock McNuggets wrote:
<BIG SNIP AGAIN>
It is wrong, David. I say this as a friend. I do not think you mean to cause
harm -- I do not think you understand how much your focus on this software, or
ClamXAV, is utter nonsense -- but it is. Even if something shows up in the >>> future where it is found he is doing wrong, YOU will not be the one to find >>> it. You are not helping anyone here. You are harming him and making a fool of
yourself. Period.
Brock,
You’ve made it clear that you prefer to focus on the person rather than
the protocol.
No. You and your AI are just flat out wrong. I am asking you to please leave him alone. STOP HARASSING HIM! You are in the wrong.
But, and this is sad and hard to say, you don't care. You do not care if you harm him. Your own false sense of security -- and it is false -- is more important to you than if you harm someone.
This is what Carroll does with me. Granted, you are not as extreme. You ask absurd questions and make absurd insinuations but you do not create socks to pretend there is more support, you do not lie about his driving record, you do
not make up stories about legal issues. So you are not as bad. Not nearly. But
you are still wrong.
My "investigation" has yielded exactly what I sought: a clear
understanding of the cryptographic dependencies between a developer's
standing with Apple and the viability of their software.
No. It has not. You continually make claims like how EtreCheck is somehow safer to use because the developer again has an app on the App Store. You say things like how the developer has access to your machine because the software does, as if the developer is doing something wrong. No evidence. No support. Just wrong insinuation.
Whether you
label that "obsession" or "due diligence" doesn't change the technical
reality of how Gatekeeper and OCSP function.
It is obsession and it is not "due diligence" at all. Due diligence would not target one developer and his software. Nor two if you count your past focus on
ClamXAV. This is a nasty and personal vendetta on your part. And it is wrong.
If you think technical scrutiny of a commercial product is "nonsense,"
I said nothing of the sort. You make things up to try to defend your harm.
we simply have different standards for system security. I’m happy to
leave the moralizing to you; I’ll stick to the technicals.
The fact you refuse to is a part of the problem.
Rest easy — my "obsession" is with my own system's integrity, not the
developer's personal feelings.
You do not care what harm you do nor his feelings about the harm you do. THAT is an issue.
David, stop using AI, stop this nonsense vendetta against him, and stop pretending it has anything to do with security concerns. If it did it would be
broader in scope. It is targeted -- laser focused on one person.
David
David, stop using AI, stop this nonsense vendetta against him, and stop pretending it has anything to do with security concerns. If it did it would be
broader in scope. It is targeted -- laser focused on one person.
On 13/03/2026 00:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David, stop using AI, stop this nonsense vendetta against him, and stop
pretending it has anything to do with security concerns. If it did it would be
broader in scope. It is targeted -- laser focused on one person.
Brock,
It's interesting that you’ve pivoted from a technical discussion to an emotional intervention. Telling me to "stop using AI" is a strange way
to concede that the technical points—specifically the OCSP and Developer ID links—are indeed accurate and irrefutable.
You keep using the word "harassment." In a technical workshop, auditing
the behavior of a commercial product (and the standing of the entity
behind it) isn't harassment—it's consumer transparency. If a software product "phones home" and relies on a specific cryptographic chain of
trust, those are legitimate topics for debate.
Since you mentioned ClamXAV, it's a perfect example of why this "due diligence" matters. When a user pays a subscription to a company like Canimaan Software Ltd, they aren't just buying code; they are buying the stability and reliability of that company.
As someone with a background in financial advising, I tend to look at
the "Hardened Runtime" of the business as well as the software. If a
company operates as a Micro-Entity in Edinburgh while handling global security data, or if the directors are heavily utilizing Director’s
Loans from company coffers, that is a valid data point for a user's risk assessment. It’s not a "vendetta"; it’s an audit.
I’m happy to stick to the technicals and the financials. If you find the reality of macOS security or corporate filings "absurd," then we simply
have a different understanding of what "verifying" actually means.
I'll leave the moralizing to you. I have some financial ledgers to
finish reviewing!
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 12, 2026 at 4:27:09 PM MST, ""David B."" wrotego david go , wreck everything
<n1h0eeFfgrrU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/03/2026 22:19, Brock McNuggets wrote:
<BIG SNIP AGAIN>
It is wrong, David. I say this as a friend. I do not think you mean to cause
harm -- I do not think you understand how much your focus on this software, or
ClamXAV, is utter nonsense -- but it is. Even if something shows up in the >>>> future where it is found he is doing wrong, YOU will not be the one to find
it. You are not helping anyone here. You are harming him and making a fool of
yourself. Period.
Brock,
You’ve made it clear that you prefer to focus on the person rather than >>> the protocol.
No. You and your AI are just flat out wrong. I am asking you to please leave >> him alone. STOP HARASSING HIM! You are in the wrong.
But, and this is sad and hard to say, you don't care. You do not care if you >> harm him. Your own false sense of security -- and it is false -- is more
important to you than if you harm someone.
This is what Carroll does with me. Granted, you are not as extreme. You ask >> absurd questions and make absurd insinuations but you do not create socks to >> pretend there is more support, you do not lie about his driving record, you do
not make up stories about legal issues. So you are not as bad. Not nearly. But
you are still wrong.
My "investigation" has yielded exactly what I sought: a clear
understanding of the cryptographic dependencies between a developer's
standing with Apple and the viability of their software.
No. It has not. You continually make claims like how EtreCheck is somehow
safer to use because the developer again has an app on the App Store. You say
things like how the developer has access to your machine because the software
does, as if the developer is doing something wrong. No evidence. No support. >> Just wrong insinuation.
Whether you
label that "obsession" or "due diligence" doesn't change the technical
reality of how Gatekeeper and OCSP function.
It is obsession and it is not "due diligence" at all. Due diligence would not
target one developer and his software. Nor two if you count your past focus on
ClamXAV. This is a nasty and personal vendetta on your part. And it is wrong.
If you think technical scrutiny of a commercial product is "nonsense,"
I said nothing of the sort. You make things up to try to defend your harm. >>
we simply have different standards for system security. I’m happy to
leave the moralizing to you; I’ll stick to the technicals.
The fact you refuse to is a part of the problem.
Rest easy — my "obsession" is with my own system's integrity, not the
developer's personal feelings.
You do not care what harm you do nor his feelings about the harm you do. THAT
is an issue.
David, stop using AI, stop this nonsense vendetta against him, and stop
pretending it has anything to do with security concerns. If it did it would be
broader in scope. It is targeted -- laser focused on one person.
David
On 07/03/2026 05:57, Gremlin wrote:
Octothorpe Obelus <one2threeMainstreet@anytown.org>
news:20260303191638.474e3819@weed Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:16:38 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:24:01 +0000
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
How To Protect Your Mac From Malware
Learn from Gary! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
You can protect your Mac from being bricked by following three simple
rules.
1. Never ever, ever, ever bring your computer to The Prescott Computer
Guy who is also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona, snit,
brock mcnuggets and dozens of other fake aliases.
He will destroy your computer and then blame you for doing it.
2. See #1.
3. See #2.
You have been warned.
A solid warning!
“Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations. Once there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this manner.
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by anti- malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple computer?”
=
That is a question asked in the "Comments" section under the video.
Do YOU know the answer?
On Mar 7, 2026 at 1:24:51 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n125mjF52siU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 07/03/2026 05:57, Gremlin wrote:
Octothorpe Obelus <one2threeMainstreet@anytown.org>
news:20260303191638.474e3819@weed Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:16:38 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:24:01 +0000
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
How To Protect Your Mac From Malware
Learn from Gary! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
You can protect your Mac from being bricked by following three simple >>>>> rules.
1. Never ever, ever, ever bring your computer to The Prescott Computer >>>> Guy who is also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona, snit,
brock mcnuggets and dozens of other fake aliases.
He will destroy your computer and then blame you for doing it.
2. See #1.
3. See #2.
You have been warned.
A solid warning!
“Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in
Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations. Once
there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for
malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this
manner.
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in
Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by anti-
malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple computer?”
=
That is a question asked in the "Comments" section under the video.
Do YOU know the answer?
Ok, going back through the threat to show specific odd claims and where you act inappropriately.
You say most software shows up in System Information >Installations. Generally
only software with an installer. Then you say "Once there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for malware." Well, sure... once there OR NOT THERE it can be scanned. But your clear implication is it must be
there. That is absurdly wrong.
You then say: "However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this manner."
This is just silly. And the insinuation that EtreCheck is doing something uncommon or wrong is untrue and inappropriate.
And then you go into nonsense about how since it does not have an installer it
cannot be scanned. Utterly wrong. It shows up in downloads and you can move it
where you wish. There is nothing wrong with this.
Please stop making insinuations and claims which are not tied to reality!
Here, since you like AI, this is what it says of your comments: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The post is based on several incorrect assumptions about how macOS
software distribution works.
Many Mac apps are not "installed" with a package installer. They are self-contained .app bundles that can run from anywhere (Downloads,
Desktop, Applications, etc.). Because of that, they often do NOT appear
in System Information > Installations. That list mainly shows software installed via .pkg installers, not every application on the system.
EtreCheck follows the same model. It is a standalone app that can be
run directly without installing anything. That behavior is common for
Mac utilities and diagnostic tools.
The claim that such software cannot be scanned by anti-malware software
is also incorrect. AV tools can scan files, folders, ZIP archives, disk images, and applications before they are run. Software does not need to
be "installed" to be scanned.
So the argument rests on a false premise: that software must appear in
the Installations list in order to be legitimate or scannable. That is
not how macOS works.
The wording of the post also suggests it is more about casting doubt
than asking a genuine technical question. It strings together several incorrect assumptions and then ends with a rhetorical question about
software being given "free reign", which frames the tool as suspicious without actually presenting evidence of a problem. That pattern is
fairly typical of Usenet debate posts aimed at discrediting a specific
tool rather than understanding the underlying technology. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
In later posts you suggest your focus is technical -- but it is not. You get the technical side grossly wrong and the focus is clearly on suggesting bad things about EtreCheck and by extension its developer. I am not asking you to drop technical discussions... but to drop this unhealthy focus and vendetta against a product and its developer.
On 08/03/2026 05:23, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 7, 2026 at 1:24:51 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n125mjF52siU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 07/03/2026 05:57, Gremlin wrote:
Octothorpe Obelus <one2threeMainstreet@anytown.org>
news:20260303191638.474e3819@weed Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:16:38 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:24:01 +0000
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
How To Protect Your Mac From Malware
Learn from Gary! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
[...]
“Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in
Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations.
This is not true.
Most 3rd party software, not from the Apple App Store, may be found there.
Have you inspected YOUR Installations folder to check?
FWIW, here is a screenshot showing most of the current 3rd-party
software installed on my SSD. You will note at the blue line that Storeograph, another software from EtreSoft Inc which is available from
the Apple App Store *IS* showing, but that EtreCheck does not.
Are you able to explain WHY that is?
Once
there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for
malware.
There or elsewhere.
There IS no application to drag into ESET to scan it.
Where else can the application be found if it is not actually installed?
However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this
manner.
Not sure what you mean by this. That only apps in the Applications folder can
be scanned? That they have to be in the System Information database? Either >> way that is not true.
I appreciate that when EtreCheck is in my 'Downloads' folder it CAN be scanned - but it poses no danger there. Once it is launched -t simply disappears - to where?
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in
Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by anti-
malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple computer?”
What would prevent it?
How can one find it?
That is a question asked in the "Comments" section under the video.
I do not see it.
Here - clear as day! https://i.ibb.co/9mgdS96R/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-11-02-15.png
Do YOU know the answer?
It does not matter if an app is in the Applications folder or not, nor if it >> had a "real" installer (most Mac apps do not), it can still be scanned.
Please explain *HOW* I can scan it once it has been launched.
Thanks for helping me understand this!
On 13/03/2026 18:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 7, 2026 at 1:24:51 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n125mjF52siU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 07/03/2026 05:57, Gremlin wrote:
Octothorpe Obelus <one2threeMainstreet@anytown.org>
news:20260303191638.474e3819@weed Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:16:38 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:24:01 +0000
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
How To Protect Your Mac From Malware
Learn from Gary! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
You can protect your Mac from being bricked by following three simple >>>>>> rules.
1. Never ever, ever, ever bring your computer to The Prescott Computer >>>>> Guy who is also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona, snit,
brock mcnuggets and dozens of other fake aliases.
He will destroy your computer and then blame you for doing it.
2. See #1.
3. See #2.
You have been warned.
A solid warning!
“Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in
Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations. Once
there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for
malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this
manner.
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in
Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by anti-
malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple computer?”
=
That is a question asked in the "Comments" section under the video.
Do YOU know the answer?
Ok, going back through the threat to show specific odd claims and where you >> act inappropriately.
You say most software shows up in System Information >Installations. Generally
only software with an installer. Then you say "Once there, software can be >> scanned with an AV software package to check for malware." Well, sure... once
there OR NOT THERE it can be scanned. But your clear implication is it must be
there. That is absurdly wrong.
You then say: "However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the >> Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this
manner."
This is just silly. And the insinuation that EtreCheck is doing something
uncommon or wrong is untrue and inappropriate.
And then you go into nonsense about how since it does not have an installer it
cannot be scanned. Utterly wrong. It shows up in downloads and you can move it
where you wish. There is nothing wrong with this.
Please stop making insinuations and claims which are not tied to reality!
Here, since you like AI, this is what it says of your comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The post is based on several incorrect assumptions about how macOS
software distribution works.
Many Mac apps are not "installed" with a package installer. They are
self-contained .app bundles that can run from anywhere (Downloads,
Desktop, Applications, etc.). Because of that, they often do NOT appear
in System Information > Installations. That list mainly shows software
installed via .pkg installers, not every application on the system.
EtreCheck follows the same model. It is a standalone app that can be
run directly without installing anything. That behavior is common for
Mac utilities and diagnostic tools.
The claim that such software cannot be scanned by anti-malware software
is also incorrect. AV tools can scan files, folders, ZIP archives, disk
images, and applications before they are run. Software does not need to
be "installed" to be scanned.
So the argument rests on a false premise: that software must appear in
the Installations list in order to be legitimate or scannable. That is
not how macOS works.
The wording of the post also suggests it is more about casting doubt
than asking a genuine technical question. It strings together several
incorrect assumptions and then ends with a rhetorical question about
software being given "free reign", which frames the tool as suspicious
without actually presenting evidence of a problem. That pattern is
fairly typical of Usenet debate posts aimed at discrediting a specific
tool rather than understanding the underlying technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In later posts you suggest your focus is technical -- but it is not. You get >> the technical side grossly wrong and the focus is clearly on suggesting bad >> things about EtreCheck and by extension its developer. I am not asking you to
drop technical discussions... but to drop this unhealthy focus and vendetta >> against a product and its developer.
OK - let's make a deal!
*YOU* post an EtreCheck report of your Mac and I'll do the same - so we
can compare. No personal information is ever shown, so there should be
no reason not to do this.
Will you do this?
On Mar 8, 2026 at 6:11:02 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n15ar6Fk7ghU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 08/03/2026 05:23, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 7, 2026 at 1:24:51 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n125mjF52siU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 07/03/2026 05:57, Gremlin wrote:
Octothorpe Obelus <one2threeMainstreet@anytown.org>
news:20260303191638.474e3819@weed Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:16:38 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:24:01 +0000
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
How To Protect Your Mac From Malware
Learn from Gary! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
[...]
“Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in
Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations.
This is not true.
Most 3rd party software, not from the Apple App Store, may be found there. >>
Have you inspected YOUR Installations folder to check?
FWIW, here is a screenshot showing most of the current 3rd-party
software installed on my SSD. You will note at the blue line that
Storeograph, another software from EtreSoft Inc which is available from
the Apple App Store *IS* showing, but that EtreCheck does not.
Are you able to explain WHY that is?
Once
there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for >>>> malware.
There or elsewhere.
There IS no application to drag into ESET to scan it.
Where else can the application be found if it is not actually installed?
However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this >>>> manner.
Not sure what you mean by this. That only apps in the Applications folder can
be scanned? That they have to be in the System Information database? Either >>> way that is not true.
I appreciate that when EtreCheck is in my 'Downloads' folder it CAN be
scanned - but it poses no danger there. Once it is launched -t simply
disappears - to where?
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in >>>> Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by anti- >>>> malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple computer?” >>>What would prevent it?
How can one find it?
That is a question asked in the "Comments" section under the video.
I do not see it.
Here - clear as day!
https://i.ibb.co/9mgdS96R/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-11-02-15.png
Do YOU know the answer?
It does not matter if an app is in the Applications folder or not, nor if it
had a "real" installer (most Mac apps do not), it can still be scanned.
Please explain *HOW* I can scan it once it has been launched.
Thanks for helping me understand this!
Again, looking at your posts and revisiting to show where you just are not understanding and are focusing more on your attacks than on tech.
You say most software can be found in System Information >Installations. Unlikely to be most, but even if so it is not relevant. There is nothing wrong
with software being distributed without an installer and it is very common on macOS. Other than the App Store it is the norm.
You then go back to the idea that software without installers cannot be scanned. This is not in any way true. And you ask about scanning EtreCheck after it has been launched. Not a problem -- as I proved to you with a video.
You are not understanding even the basics of the technology side of this discussion. To be fair, that is fine -- being ignorant of something is not immoral or wrong. And not an insult. I am ignorant of many things (say anything beyond very simple programming / coding, or soldering, or welding, etc.) But you present your ignorance as if it is knowledge, then use clearly erroneous conclusions to focus on one piece of software and by extension its developer.
in short: nothing wrong with being wrong, but being confident in your incorrect claims and then focusing on one product / developer IS wrong and harmful.
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.
First, OCSP and Developer ID aren’t discoveries. They’re fundamental parts
of the macOS security model created by Apple. Every properly signed macOS application participates in that chain of trust. Mentioning those terms doesn’t reveal anything unusual about a specific utility — it simply shows
the software is behaving exactly the way the platform is designed to
behave.
Second, EtreCheck isn’t “phoning home” in the conspiratorial sense you’re
implying. The developer, Etresoft (Etresoft), has been extremely
transparent for years about what the app does: it collects system
diagnostic data locally and can optionally share anonymized data for troubleshooting. That’s normal for diagnostic utilities and has been publicly documented many times.
Third, bringing up UK corporate filings and director’s loans for the company behind ClamXAV — Canimaan Software Ltd — isn’t “auditing the hardened runtime of the business.” It’s just dragging unrelated financial trivia into a technical discussion. UK small-company filings routinely include director loans; they’re common, legal, and not remotely indicative of security risk.
So no, the issue isn’t that the “technical points are irrefutable.” The issue is that the points being presented don’t actually support the conclusions you’re drawing from them.
Calling that “harassment” isn’t moralizing — it’s pointing out that repeatedly targeting a small independent developer with speculative accusations based on misunderstood infrastructure isn’t productive or fair.
If you want to discuss macOS security, great. There are lots of interesting details in the notarization and Developer ID systems. But right now you’re treating ordinary platform behavior as if it were a discovery, and treating public company filings as if they were a vulnerability report.
That’s not an audit.
It’s just noise.
On 13/03/2026 19:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Again, looking at your posts and revisiting to show where you just are not >> understanding and are focusing more on your attacks than on tech.
You say most software can be found in System Information >Installations.
Unlikely to be most, but even if so it is not relevant. There is nothing wrong
with software being distributed without an installer and it is very common on
macOS. Other than the App Store it is the norm.
You then go back to the idea that software without installers cannot be
scanned. This is not in any way true. And you ask about scanning EtreCheck >> after it has been launched. Not a problem -- as I proved to you with a video.
You are not understanding even the basics of the technology side of this
discussion. To be fair, that is fine -- being ignorant of something is not >> immoral or wrong. And not an insult. I am ignorant of many things (say
anything beyond very simple programming / coding, or soldering, or welding, >> etc.) But you present your ignorance as if it is knowledge, then use clearly >> erroneous conclusions to focus on one piece of software and by extension its >> developer.
in short: nothing wrong with being wrong, but being confident in your
incorrect claims and then focusing on one product / developer IS wrong and >> harmful.
May I have a link to that video again?
Will you also explain how you actually MADE the video?
Thanks.
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are
irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly
generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually >> understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.
First, OCSP and Developer ID aren’t discoveries. They’re fundamental parts
of the macOS security model created by Apple. Every properly signed macOS
application participates in that chain of trust. Mentioning those terms
doesn’t reveal anything unusual about a specific utility — it simply shows
the software is behaving exactly the way the platform is designed to
behave.
Of course.
Second, EtreCheck isn’t “phoning home” in the conspiratorial sense you’re
implying. The developer, Etresoft (Etresoft), has been extremely
transparent for years about what the app does: it collects system
diagnostic data locally and can optionally share anonymized data for
troubleshooting. That’s normal for diagnostic utilities and has been
publicly documented many times.
That's correct. It DOES have a connection to my computer when I run it.
Third, bringing up UK corporate filings and director’s loans for the
company behind ClamXAV — Canimaan Software Ltd — isn’t “auditing the >> hardened runtime of the business.” It’s just dragging unrelated financial
trivia into a technical discussion. UK small-company filings routinely
include director loans; they’re common, legal, and not remotely indicative >> of security risk.
It's an indication of possible criminal activity.
So no, the issue isn’t that the “technical points are irrefutable.” The
issue is that the points being presented don’t actually support the
conclusions you’re drawing from them.
That's just *your* opinion. Most folk do not trust what you say. :-(
Calling that “harassment” isn’t moralizing — it’s pointing out that
repeatedly targeting a small independent developer with speculative
accusations based on misunderstood infrastructure isn’t productive or fair.
I haven't misunderstood anything!
If you want to discuss macOS security, great. There are lots of interesting >> details in the notarization and Developer ID systems. But right now you’re >> treating ordinary platform behavior as if it were a discovery, and treating >> public company filings as if they were a vulnerability report.
That’s not an audit.
It’s just noise.
No, it's not. You have taken no interest in matters which have
concerned me.
I even feel guilty for having recommended that you use Usenapp.
That's another suspect software from someone who hides in the shadows!
You've never shown any interest in a product which could be logging
every key which you press on your keyboard! You simply don't care, do you?
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are
irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually
understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:00:50 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1jfoiFrb9kU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 19:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
...
Again, looking at your posts and revisiting to show where you just are not >>> understanding and are focusing more on your attacks than on tech.
You say most software can be found in System Information >Installations. >>> Unlikely to be most, but even if so it is not relevant. There is nothing wrong
with software being distributed without an installer and it is very common on
macOS. Other than the App Store it is the norm.
You then go back to the idea that software without installers cannot be
scanned. This is not in any way true. And you ask about scanning EtreCheck >>> after it has been launched. Not a problem -- as I proved to you with a video.
You are not understanding even the basics of the technology side of this >>> discussion. To be fair, that is fine -- being ignorant of something is not >>> immoral or wrong. And not an insult. I am ignorant of many things (say
anything beyond very simple programming / coding, or soldering, or welding, >>> etc.) But you present your ignorance as if it is knowledge, then use clearly
erroneous conclusions to focus on one piece of software and by extension its
developer.
in short: nothing wrong with being wrong, but being confident in your
incorrect claims and then focusing on one product / developer IS wrong and >>> harmful.
May I have a link to that video again?
Sure.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TB0qTwkjHxH9E-8y0KCFee_LMtSBwcPS/view?usp=share_link
Will you also explain how you actually MADE the video?
Thanks.
I used ScreenFlow... but the basics are simple:
I set up the windows as I wanted, turned on recording, did the steps you see, and then ended the recording. In post production (after recording) I did change the cursor so it was easier to see, but you can use the macOS built in tools and get a recording just fine. I also trimmed the first bit and the last
to just focus on the time I wanted to show.
In macOS you can record with
Command+Shift+5
Record Entire Screen (or selected window or portion if you prefer)
On 13/03/2026 23:36, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:00:50 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1jfoiFrb9kU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 19:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
...
Again, looking at your posts and revisiting to show where you just are not >>>> understanding and are focusing more on your attacks than on tech.
You say most software can be found in System Information >Installations. >>>> Unlikely to be most, but even if so it is not relevant. There is nothing wrong
with software being distributed without an installer and it is very common on
macOS. Other than the App Store it is the norm.
You then go back to the idea that software without installers cannot be >>>> scanned. This is not in any way true. And you ask about scanning EtreCheck >>>> after it has been launched. Not a problem -- as I proved to you with a video.
You are not understanding even the basics of the technology side of this >>>> discussion. To be fair, that is fine -- being ignorant of something is not >>>> immoral or wrong. And not an insult. I am ignorant of many things (say >>>> anything beyond very simple programming / coding, or soldering, or welding,
etc.) But you present your ignorance as if it is knowledge, then use clearly
erroneous conclusions to focus on one piece of software and by extension its
developer.
in short: nothing wrong with being wrong, but being confident in your
incorrect claims and then focusing on one product / developer IS wrong and >>>> harmful.
May I have a link to that video again?
Sure.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TB0qTwkjHxH9E-8y0KCFee_LMtSBwcPS/view?usp=share_link
Thank you. 🥰
Will you also explain how you actually MADE the video?
Thanks.
I used ScreenFlow... but the basics are simple:
I don't have that - it's £180 = $238 today! *BIG BUCKS*
I set up the windows as I wanted, turned on recording, did the steps you see,
and then ended the recording. In post production (after recording) I did
change the cursor so it was easier to see, but you can use the macOS built in
tools and get a recording just fine. I also trimmed the first bit and the last
to just focus on the time I wanted to show.
Thank for explaining.
In macOS you can record with
Command+Shift+5
Record Entire Screen (or selected window or portion if you prefer)
Thanks for reminding me!
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually
understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal intervention,
let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce. You know better than
anyone that I don't act out of malice or a "vendetta."
However, in a technical workshop, friendship is not a substitute for verification.
You dismiss corporate filings as "trivia," but as an IFA, I see them differently. Canimaan Software Ltd is a "Micro-Entity" in Edinburgh.
When such a small firm—handling global security subscriptions—shows significant Director’s Loans on its balance sheet while relying on "long-term workarounds" for kernel panics (as documented in their own
version history), that is a professional red flag. It isn't "harassment"
to point out that a company’s financial liquidity and technical architecture are linked.
You tell me to "stop using AI," yet you haven't refuted the technical
reality of OCSP or Developer ID revocation.
You’ve simply labeled the
facts "noise" because they don't fit your narrative of "protecting" an innocent developer.
I’m not "paranoid," Michael.
I’m an auditor.
I separate the person from
the product.
If you find technical and financial transparency "absurd,"
then we simply have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes
system security.
I’m going to get some rest now. I'll leave the moralizing to you; I’ll stick to the ledgers.--
David
On Mar 13, 2026 at 5:10:31 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1jnboFsgmpU1@mid.individual.net>:[SNIP]
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually
understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention,
This was never a technical discussion.
let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce. You know better than
anyone that I don't act out of malice or a "vendetta."
I do not think you mean to cause harm -- but you are causing harm.
However, in a technical workshop, friendship is not a substitute for
verification.
You dismiss corporate filings as "trivia," but as an IFA, I see them
differently. Canimaan Software Ltd is a "Micro-Entity" in Edinburgh.
When such a small firm—handling global security subscriptions—shows
significant Director’s Loans on its balance sheet while relying on
"long-term workarounds" for kernel panics (as documented in their own
version history), that is a professional red flag. It isn't "harassment"
to point out that a company’s financial liquidity and technical
architecture are linked.
What has come of this?
On 14/03/2026 01:10, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 5:10:31 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[SNIP]
<n1jnboFsgmpU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly
generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually
understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention,
This was never a technical discussion.
let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce. You know better than
anyone that I don't act out of malice or a "vendetta."
I do not think you mean to cause harm -- but you are causing harm.
However, in a technical workshop, friendship is not a substitute for
verification.
You dismiss corporate filings as "trivia," but as an IFA, I see them
differently. Canimaan Software Ltd is a "Micro-Entity" in Edinburgh.
When such a small firm—handling global security subscriptions—shows
significant Director’s Loans on its balance sheet while relying on
"long-term workarounds" for kernel panics (as documented in their own
version history), that is a professional red flag. It isn't "harassment" >>> to point out that a company’s financial liquidity and technical
architecture are linked.
What has come of this?
Michael,
You asked, "What has come of this?"
What has come of it is a formal recognition that the financial and
technical health of a security provider are inseparable. As an IFA, I
don’t ignore a "Micro-Entity" balance sheet dominated by five-figure Director's Loans while the product itself relies on documented
"workarounds" for system-level stability issues.
I have taken the appropriate professional steps to ensure that the
financial side of this operation is reviewed by the relevant
authorities. If there is no wrongdoing, then there is no issue. But "the truth will out," and users have a right to know if the company they
trust with their system's "Root" access is as stable as its marketing suggests.
You call this "irrational focus." I call it professional accountability. While you focus on protecting the "man," I will continue to focus on protecting the "system."
Do you actually know what an IFA does in real life?
Here's a clue:-
An independent financial adviser or IFA can advise you on all financial products that they think meet your needs. They are independent and whole-of-market:
Independent means they aren't acting on behalf of any particular product, provider or other body.Whole-of-market means they can consider various financial products from
multiple lenders.They act on behalf of you, the client, which means *the advice they give you must be impartial*.
https://www.money.co.uk/guides/5-steps-to-finding-an-ifa-you-can-trust
HTH. 😅
The post sounds confident, but it mostly substitutes implication and credentials for actual evidence. The author claims the “financial and technical health” of a security product are inseparable, then points to a micro-entity balance sheet and director’s loans as if that somehow proves a security risk. That’s a pretty big leap. Small independent software developers commonly have simple accounts and director loans—it’s normal and
not evidence of instability or wrongdoing. Likewise, mentioning “workarounds” or “root access” without explaining a specific technical flaw
doesn’t demonstrate a real security problem.
The repeated emphasis on being an “IFA” doesn’t really help the argument
either. Independent financial advisers typically advise clients on investments, pensions, and insurance; they don’t audit software architecture or evaluate macOS security tooling. Invoking regulators and explaining what an IFA does reads more like credential-waving and
escalation than a substantive critique. If there’s a real technical issue, the productive path would be to show the actual vulnerability or flawed behavior rather than relying on insinuation about company finances.
On 14/03/2026 09:26, Brock McNuggets posted an AI answer!
The post sounds confident, but it mostly substitutes implication and
credentials for actual evidence. The author claims the “financial and
technical health” of a security product are inseparable, then points to a >> micro-entity balance sheet and director’s loans as if that somehow proves a
security risk. That’s a pretty big leap. Small independent software
developers commonly have simple accounts and director loans—it’s normal and
not evidence of instability or wrongdoing. Likewise, mentioning
“workarounds” or “root access” without explaining a specific technical flaw
doesn’t demonstrate a real security problem.
The repeated emphasis on being an “IFA” doesn’t really help the argument
either. Independent financial advisers typically advise clients on
investments, pensions, and insurance; they don’t audit software
architecture or evaluate macOS security tooling. Invoking regulators and
explaining what an IFA does reads more like credential-waving and
escalation than a substantive critique. If there’s a real technical issue, >> the productive path would be to show the actual vulnerability or flawed
behavior rather than relying on insinuation about company finances.
=
Michael,
You dismiss my concerns as "insinuation" and "credential-waving," yet
you continue to ignore the hard data. Let’s move past the labels and
look at the "substantive critique" you claim is missing.
1. The "Root Access" Fact: CVE-2024-24245
You say I haven't explained a specific technical flaw. Here is the documentation: CVE-2024-24245.
For nearly four years (Nov 2020 to April 2024), ClamXAV versions 3.1.2 through 3.6.1 contained a Local Privilege Escalation vulnerability in
the Privileged Helper Tool. This wasn't a "theoretical" risk; it was a
flaw that allowed low-level processes to gain System/Root privileges. If
you think a 41-month window to patch a Root-level exploit is "normal,"
then we have vastly different definitions of security.
2. The Financial Logic
You claim Director's Loans are just "normal trivia." As an IFA, I see a conflict of interest. While the developer was leaving that Root-level vulnerability unpatched for years, the company filings show tens of
thousands of pounds being moved into Director's Loans. In any other
industry, extracting capital while failing to fix a critical safety flaw
in a "security" product would be a scandal.
3. The "Workaround" Reality
I don’t need to be a kernel engineer to read the developer’s own notes: "Long-term workaround for Apple's kernel panic issue" (v3.5.1). You
defend the "man," but the code tells the story of a Micro-Entity taking shortcuts because a full architectural rewrite to Apple's modern
Endpoint Security Framework was likely too expensive.
I’m an auditor, Michael. I look at the balance sheet and the CVE record. You look at a Facebook profile. The "truth will out," and currently, the truth is written in the National Vulnerability Database and the
Companies House records.
On 14/03/2026 09:26, Brock McNuggets posted an AI answer!
The post sounds confident, but it mostly substitutes implication and
credentials for actual evidence. The author claims the “financial and
technical health” of a security product are inseparable, then points to a >> micro-entity balance sheet and director’s loans as if that somehow proves a
security risk. That’s a pretty big leap. Small independent software
developers commonly have simple accounts and director loans—it’s normal and
not evidence of instability or wrongdoing. Likewise, mentioning
“workarounds” or “root access” without explaining a specific technical flaw
doesn’t demonstrate a real security problem.
The repeated emphasis on being an “IFA” doesn’t really help the argument
either. Independent financial advisers typically advise clients on
investments, pensions, and insurance; they don’t audit software
architecture or evaluate macOS security tooling. Invoking regulators and
explaining what an IFA does reads more like credential-waving and
escalation than a substantive critique. If there’s a real technical issue, >> the productive path would be to show the actual vulnerability or flawed
behavior rather than relying on insinuation about company finances.
=
Michael,
You dismiss my concerns as "insinuation" and "credential-waving," yet
you continue to ignore the hard data. Let’s move past the labels and
look at the "substantive critique" you claim is missing.
1. The "Root Access" Fact: CVE-2024-24245
You say I haven't explained a specific technical flaw. Here is the documentation: CVE-2024-24245.
For nearly four years (Nov 2020 to April 2024), ClamXAV versions 3.1.2 through 3.6.1 contained a Local Privilege Escalation vulnerability in
the Privileged Helper Tool. This wasn't a "theoretical" risk; it was a
flaw that allowed low-level processes to gain System/Root privileges. If
you think a 41-month window to patch a Root-level exploit is "normal,"
then we have vastly different definitions of security.
2. The Financial Logic
You claim Director's Loans are just "normal trivia." As an IFA, I see a conflict of interest. While the developer was leaving that Root-level vulnerability unpatched for years, the company filings show tens of thousands of pounds being moved into Director's Loans. In any other industry, extracting capital while failing to fix a critical safety flaw
in a "security" product would be a scandal.
3. The "Workaround" Reality
I don’t need to be a kernel engineer to read the developer’s own notes: "Long-term workaround for Apple's kernel panic issue" (v3.5.1). You
defend the "man," but the code tells the story of a Micro-Entity taking shortcuts because a full architectural rewrite to Apple's modern
Endpoint Security Framework was likely too expensive.
I’m an auditor, Michael. I look at the balance sheet and the CVE record. You look at a Facebook profile. The "truth will out," and currently, the truth is written in the National Vulnerability Database and the
Companies House records.
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/03/2026 09:26, Brock McNuggets posted an AI answer!
The post sounds confident, but it mostly substitutes implication and
credentials for actual evidence. The author claims the “financial and
technical health” of a security product are inseparable, then points to a >>> micro-entity balance sheet and director’s loans as if that somehow proves a
security risk. That’s a pretty big leap. Small independent software
developers commonly have simple accounts and director loans—it’s normal and
not evidence of instability or wrongdoing. Likewise, mentioning
“workarounds” or “root access” without explaining a specific technical flaw
doesn’t demonstrate a real security problem.
The repeated emphasis on being an “IFA” doesn’t really help the argument
either. Independent financial advisers typically advise clients on
investments, pensions, and insurance; they don’t audit software
architecture or evaluate macOS security tooling. Invoking regulators and >>> explaining what an IFA does reads more like credential-waving and
escalation than a substantive critique. If there’s a real technical issue,
the productive path would be to show the actual vulnerability or flawed
behavior rather than relying on insinuation about company finances.
=
Michael,
You dismiss my concerns as "insinuation" and "credential-waving," yet
you continue to ignore the hard data. Let’s move past the labels and
look at the "substantive critique" you claim is missing.
1. The "Root Access" Fact: CVE-2024-24245
You say I haven't explained a specific technical flaw. Here is the
documentation: CVE-2024-24245.
For nearly four years (Nov 2020 to April 2024), ClamXAV versions 3.1.2
through 3.6.1 contained a Local Privilege Escalation vulnerability in
the Privileged Helper Tool. This wasn't a "theoretical" risk; it was a
flaw that allowed low-level processes to gain System/Root privileges. If
you think a 41-month window to patch a Root-level exploit is "normal,"
then we have vastly different definitions of security.
What did your “investigation” have to do with finding this?
2. The Financial Logic
You claim Director's Loans are just "normal trivia." As an IFA, I see a
conflict of interest. While the developer was leaving that Root-level
vulnerability unpatched for years, the company filings show tens of
thousands of pounds being moved into Director's Loans. In any other
industry, extracting capital while failing to fix a critical safety flaw
in a "security" product would be a scandal.
What did your “investigation” have to do with uncovering this?
3. The "Workaround" Reality
I don’t need to be a kernel engineer to read the developer’s own notes: >> "Long-term workaround for Apple's kernel panic issue" (v3.5.1). You
defend the "man," but the code tells the story of a Micro-Entity taking
shortcuts because a full architectural rewrite to Apple's modern
Endpoint Security Framework was likely too expensive.
What did your “investigation” have to do with any of this?
I’m an auditor, Michael. I look at the balance sheet and the CVE record. >> You look at a Facebook profile. The "truth will out," and currently, the
truth is written in the National Vulnerability Database and the
Companies House records.
All you’re showing is you’re looking at what others find. On products you obsess over and have nothing to do with finding anything new or protecting yourself or anyone else.
And you’ve left the main topic of your false insinuations against EtreCheck behind.
On 14/03/2026 15:44, Brock McNuggets copied and pasted a response!
Michael,
It’s clear you’re now relying on an AI to provide a "concise summary" of why you shouldn't be concerned. However, your AI’s defense of "normalcy" fails when held up against professional auditing standards.
1. On the "41-Month Window"
Your AI claims that unless the developer "knew" about the bug, the
41-month exposure is irrelevant. As an auditor, I disagree. In security, undiscovered vulnerabilities are a liability of competence. If a
"Security" company allows a Root-level exploit (CVE-2024-24245) to sit
in their "Privileged Helper Tool" for nearly four years without catching
it themselves, that is a failure of their internal security audit
process. Exposure time is the metric of risk, not the developer’s "awareness."
2. On Financial "Innuendo"
You (or your AI) claim that Director's Loans are just "routine
accounting." This is where my IFA background actually matters. In a UK Micro-Entity, capital is finite.
When a company is diverting significant
funds into Director's Loans (which are essentially interest-free
personal capital), that money is not being spent on third-party security audits or hiring the high-level engineers needed to move from legacy "workarounds" to the Apple Endpoint Security Framework.
In professional risk assessment, we look at Resource Allocation. If the
money is going to the Director's pocket instead of fixing "long-term
kernel panics" and finding Root exploits, that is a substantive critique
of the business's priorities.
3. On "Reputation Damage"
You call this reputation damage; I call it Consumer Transparency.
A
company that sells security on a subscription basis is making a promise
of superior vigilance.
The "Truth" revealed by the CVE and the Companies
House filings is that the vigilance was absent for 41 months while the profits were being extracted as loans.
Michael, you can have your AI generate all the "analytical" summaries it wants. It doesn't change the fact that while you were defending the
"man,"
his software was providing a Root-level door for attackers and
his balance sheet was showing a preference for personal loans over
technical excellence.
I’m happy to let the "silent observers" decide whose standards for Mac security — and corporate transparency — they prefer.
On 14/03/2026 15:52, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/03/2026 09:26, Brock McNuggets posted an AI answer!
The post sounds confident, but it mostly substitutes implication and
credentials for actual evidence. The author claims the “financial and >>>> technical health” of a security product are inseparable, then points to a
micro-entity balance sheet and director’s loans as if that somehow proves a
security risk. That’s a pretty big leap. Small independent software
developers commonly have simple accounts and director loans—it’s normal and
not evidence of instability or wrongdoing. Likewise, mentioning
“workarounds” or “root access” without explaining a specific technical flaw
doesn’t demonstrate a real security problem.
The repeated emphasis on being an “IFA” doesn’t really help the argument
either. Independent financial advisers typically advise clients on
investments, pensions, and insurance; they don’t audit software
architecture or evaluate macOS security tooling. Invoking regulators and >>>> explaining what an IFA does reads more like credential-waving and
escalation than a substantive critique. If there’s a real technical issue,
the productive path would be to show the actual vulnerability or flawed >>>> behavior rather than relying on insinuation about company finances.
=
Michael,
You dismiss my concerns as "insinuation" and "credential-waving," yet
you continue to ignore the hard data. Let’s move past the labels and
look at the "substantive critique" you claim is missing.
1. The "Root Access" Fact: CVE-2024-24245
You say I haven't explained a specific technical flaw. Here is the
documentation: CVE-2024-24245.
For nearly four years (Nov 2020 to April 2024), ClamXAV versions 3.1.2
through 3.6.1 contained a Local Privilege Escalation vulnerability in
the Privileged Helper Tool. This wasn't a "theoretical" risk; it was a
flaw that allowed low-level processes to gain System/Root privileges. If >>> you think a 41-month window to patch a Root-level exploit is "normal,"
then we have vastly different definitions of security.
What did your “investigation” have to do with finding this?
2. The Financial Logic
You claim Director's Loans are just "normal trivia." As an IFA, I see a
conflict of interest. While the developer was leaving that Root-level
vulnerability unpatched for years, the company filings show tens of
thousands of pounds being moved into Director's Loans. In any other
industry, extracting capital while failing to fix a critical safety flaw >>> in a "security" product would be a scandal.
What did your “investigation” have to do with uncovering this?
3. The "Workaround" Reality
I don’t need to be a kernel engineer to read the developer’s own notes: >>> "Long-term workaround for Apple's kernel panic issue" (v3.5.1). You
defend the "man," but the code tells the story of a Micro-Entity taking
shortcuts because a full architectural rewrite to Apple's modern
Endpoint Security Framework was likely too expensive.
What did your “investigation” have to do with any of this?
I’m an auditor, Michael. I look at the balance sheet and the CVE record. >>> You look at a Facebook profile. The "truth will out," and currently, the >>> truth is written in the National Vulnerability Database and the
Companies House records.
All you’re showing is you’re looking at what others find. On products you
obsess over and have nothing to do with finding anything new or protecting >> yourself or anyone else.
And you’ve left the main topic of your false insinuations against EtreCheck
behind.
If you had followed from the very beginning, you'd understand that
answers to your questions were all provided by me (HunterBD) in the ASC forums many years ago.
Here's your "starter for 10" (University Challenge!)
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8357144?sortBy=rank&page=1
"Asinrutee" is *NOT* me but is, in fact, a real-life friend of mine!
On Mar 13, 2026 at 5:10:31 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1jnboFsgmpU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:you don’t actually >>>> understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis. >>>>
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal intervention,
This was never a technical discussion.
let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce. You know better than
anyone that I don't act out of malice or a "vendetta."
I do not think you mean to cause harm -- but you are causing harm.
You tell me to "stop using AI," yet you haven't refuted the
technical reality of OCSP or Developer ID revocation.
What makes you think it has been in contention?
As far as not using AI, I do not mean at all -- but as a substitute
for understanding.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 5:10:31 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1jnboFsgmpU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:clearly >>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s
you don’t actually >>>> understand. That’s not verification — it’s >> cargo-cult technical analysis. >>>>
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention,
This was never a technical discussion.
How would you know, Michael?
You are a blithering idiot who can't read worth a shit.
let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce. You know better than
anyone that I don't act out of malice or a "vendetta."
I do not think you mean to cause harm -- but you are causing harm.
You are in no position to pass judgement on others seeing as you cause
harm to people every day.
You make many accusations and attributions however you seem to ignore offering a cite for such or if you do offer a cite it does not back up
your claims. And you have been playing this twisted, harmful game for a
long while Michael.
You tell me to "stop using AI," yet you haven't refuted the
technical reality of OCSP or Developer ID revocation.
What makes you think it has been in contention?
As far as not using AI, I do not mean at all -- but as a substitute
for understanding.
But that is what you do Michael.
You plug words and phrases into AI and churn out highly biased, in some
cases libelous, statements against others who may disagree with your
trolling hobby. You are the queen of projection and right now you are projecting your vile, hurtful, dishonest persona on David.What's the
matter Michael? Are you envious of David because he is a better troll
than you are? Or did someone piss on your teddy bear cookies again?
On 14/03/2026 01:10, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 5:10:31 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[SNIP]
<n1jnboFsgmpU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly
generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t actually
understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention,
This was never a technical discussion.
let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce. You know better than
anyone that I don't act out of malice or a "vendetta."
I do not think you mean to cause harm -- but you are causing harm.
However, in a technical workshop, friendship is not a substitute for
verification.
You dismiss corporate filings as "trivia," but as an IFA, I see them
differently. Canimaan Software Ltd is a "Micro-Entity" in Edinburgh.
When such a small firm—handling global security subscriptions—shows
significant Director’s Loans on its balance sheet while relying on
"long-term workarounds" for kernel panics (as documented in their own
version history), that is a professional red flag. It isn't "harassment" >>> to point out that a company’s financial liquidity and technical
architecture are linked.
What has come of this?
Michael,
You asked, "What has come of this?"
What has come of it is a formal recognition that the financial and
technical health of a security provider are inseparable.
As an IFA, I
don’t ignore a "Micro-Entity" balance sheet dominated by five-figure Director's Loans while the product itself relies on documented
"workarounds" for system-level stability issues.
I have taken the appropriate professional steps to ensure that the
financial side of this operation is reviewed by the relevant
authorities.
If there is no wrongdoing, then there is no issue.
But "the
truth will out," and users have a right to know if the company they
trust with their system's "Root" access is as stable as its marketing suggests.
You call this "irrational focus." I call it professional accountability.
While you focus on protecting the "man," I will continue to focus on protecting the "system."
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t
actually understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult
technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal intervention, let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long time, and I stood by you during your divorce.
David
On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 00:10:31 +0000, David B. wrote:
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t
actually understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult >>>>> technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention, let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce.
David
With Glasser everything is a personal intervention. Just look at how he
turns every thread, technical or not, into an attack on SC or others.
Glasser needs to be the center of attention and tends to wander off the
rails when he is not.
The facts speak for themselves. Glasser has been at this game of his for decades and will probably breathe his last breath while trolling Usenet.
He needs intense, professional therapy if he is ever willing to admit his mental issues and sincerely wants a full recovery from whatever he is afflicted with.
When he first showed up in the gun groups initially I suspected he was a
bot of sorts. Once he began disrupting the group someone cross posted
those lists and he got exposed and subsequently politely asked to either
cut the cross posting or leave. To his credit he had enough common sense
to leave. I suppose even a moron like Glasser realized that annoying gun enthusiasts was not a smart move.
So now he belongs to you DB.
My advice is to not interact with him directly which will cut off his
oxygen supply and he will eventually go away due to lack of attention.
By encouraging him you are not helping him.
Glock wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 00:10:31 +0000, David B. wrote:and you just did what you say he does
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly
generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t >>>>>> actually understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult >>>>>> technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention, let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long >>> time, and I stood by you during your divorce.
David
With Glasser everything is a personal intervention. Just look at how he
turns every thread, technical or not, into an attack on SC or others.
Glasser needs to be the center of attention and tends to wander off the
rails when he is not.
The facts speak for themselves. Glasser has been at this game of his for
decades and will probably breathe his last breath while trolling Usenet.
He needs intense, professional therapy if he is ever willing to admit his
mental issues and sincerely wants a full recovery from whatever he is
afflicted with.
When he first showed up in the gun groups initially I suspected he was a
bot of sorts. Once he began disrupting the group someone cross posted
those lists and he got exposed and subsequently politely asked to either
cut the cross posting or leave. To his credit he had enough common sense
to leave. I suppose even a moron like Glasser realized that annoying gun
enthusiasts was not a smart move.
So now he belongs to you DB.
My advice is to not interact with him directly which will cut off his
oxygen supply and he will eventually go away due to lack of attention.
By encouraging him you are not helping him.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 00:10:31 +0000, David B. wrote:
On 13/03/2026 23:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Mar 13, 2026 at 3:41:49 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n1ji5dFrnn7U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/03/2026 13:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
David,
You’re not being asked to “stop using AI” because the points are >>>>> irrefutable. You’re being asked to stop using it because it’s clearly >>>>> generating confident-sounding explanations about topics you don’t
actually understand. That’s not verification — it’s cargo-cult >>>>> technical analysis.
Let’s untangle a few things.<SNIP>
Brock/Michael,
Since you've moved this from a technical discussion to a personal
intervention, let's be clear: we’ve been friends on Facebook for a long
time, and I stood by you during your divorce.
David
With Glasser everything is a personal intervention. Just look at how he
turns every thread, technical or not, into an attack on SC or others.
Glasser needs to be the center of attention and tends to wander off the
rails when he is not.
The facts speak for themselves. Glasser has been at this game of his for decades and will probably breathe his last breath while trolling Usenet.
He needs intense, professional therapy if he is ever willing to admit his mental issues and sincerely wants a full recovery from whatever he is afflicted with.
When he first showed up in the gun groups initially I suspected he was a
bot of sorts. Once he began disrupting the group someone cross posted
those lists and he got exposed and subsequently politely asked to either
cut the cross posting or leave. To his credit he had enough common sense
to leave. I suppose even a moron like Glasser realized that annoying gun enthusiasts was not a smart move.
So now he belongs to you DB.
My advice is to not interact with him directly which will cut off his
oxygen supply and he will eventually go away due to lack of attention.
By encouraging him you are not helping him.
On Mar 14, 2026 at 9:13:10 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1lfomF6d13U1@mid.individual.net>:
If you had followed from the very beginning, you'd understand that
answers to your questions were all provided by me (HunterBD) in the ASC
forums many years ago.
Here's your "starter for 10" (University Challenge!)
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8357144?sortBy=rank&page=1
"Asinrutee" is *NOT* me but is, in fact, a real-life friend of mine!
What part do you think is relevant?
David... if this is really what you did and not just AI blather, I am deeply disappointed in you.
Gee, a sock pushing ad hominem tied to ancient battles.. wonder who that is? LOL!
You are using AI and it is leading you astray. Please, David, try to understand you are not helping your case here.
On 14/03/2026 18:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
You are using AI and it is leading you astray. Please, David, try to
understand you are not helping your case here.
Michael,
On 14/03/2026 19:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Gee, a sock pushing ad hominem tied to ancient battles.. wonder who that is? >> LOL!
That was "Nobody"!
On 14/03/2026 20:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David... if this is really what you did and not just AI blather, I am deeply >> disappointed in you.
I'm saddened that you feel this way.
On 14/03/2026 20:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David... if this is really what you did and not just AI blather, I am deeply >> disappointed in you.
I'm saddened that you feel this way.
On Mar 16, 2026 at 3:43:21 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n1q569FslcrU3@mid.individual.net>:
On 14/03/2026 19:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Gee, a sock pushing ad hominem tied to ancient battles.. wonder who that is?
LOL!
That was "Nobody"!
Whose sock?
At Sat, 7 Mar 2026 05:57:47 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> wrote:
A solid warning!
BTW, I wanted to say a few days ago that I did appreciate your
exposition of David's notoriety.
David: You should be ashamed of yourself.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,104 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 492390:11:13 |
| Calls: | 14,151 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,281 |
| D/L today: |
2,873 files (1,061M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,501,217 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
