301–310 of 473 posts
GoToMeeting and Zoom are two things I always insist not to use. There are perfectly acceptable online-only counterparts that don't need to infect my computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > To shut down the web server, run lsof -i :19421 to get the PID of the process, then do kill -9 [process number]. Then you can delete the ~/.zoomus directory to remove the web server application files. > To prevent this server from being restored after updates you can execute the following in your terminal: rm -rf ~/.zoomus touch ~/.zoomus
I did this: 1. killed by process name, and zoom app will 2. fail to start its opener and 3. fail to reinstall it: killall ZoomOpener chmod -x .zoomus/ZoomOpener.app/Contents/MacOS/ZoomOpener sudo chown -R nobody:nobody .zoomus/ZoomOpener.app
Here's a modified version that deletes the app, removes the LoginItem if it exists, and makes the ~/.zoomus directory unwritable, which achieves the same thing but avoids the nag:
killall ZoomOpener
osascript -e 'tell application "System Events" to delete login item "ZoomOpener"'
rm -rf ~/.zoomus/ZoomOpener.app
sudo chown -R nobody:nobody .zoomus> Our users don’t care about security. They're not wrong. Empirically, users explicitly preferred Zoom because it lacked the "ask the user" step before starting a session. Less security is a user visible advantage.
If you're interested in seeing if you're vulnerable to this, visit this website: http://zoomzeroday.com
Zoom’s response to this[1] is a wonderful example of how not to respond to security issues. It includes the classic tropes: * Our users don’t care about security. > Our video-first platform is a key benefit to our users around the world, and our customers have told us that they choose Zoom for our frictionless video communications experience. * We have no way of knowing if this has been exploited in the wild, so it’s…
> All first-time Zoom users, upon joining their first meeting from a given device, are asked whether they would like their video to be turned OFF. For subsequent meetings, users can configure their client video settings to turn OFF video when joining a meeting. > Additionally, system administrators can pre-configure video settings for supported devices at the time of install or change the configuration at anytime. TB…
By this I mean:
I have no local web server running on 19421; and
Your link doesn't launch or reinstall anything for me.
Now, something I do that most people probably don't is periodically check StartupItems as well as the LaunchAgents and LaunchDaemons folders, so I can remove anything left over.
I do not mean to trivialize this problem, because what Zoom has done here is egregious and unforgivable, BUT is it accurate to say that the reinstall behavior depends on
1, usage of Chrome and 2, the presence of a StartupItem / LaunchAgent / LaunchDaemon?
I ask because it didn't work for me, even though I still had the ~/.zoomus shit in place (obvs, I don't anymore).
I just want to make sure I understand it properly, and that I've taken the necessary steps to prevent Zoom's unwelcome return.
HIPAA provides an effective strategy for holding Zoom’s feet to the fire in cases like this. Since the company markets compliant video conferencing for healthcare professionals, they are classified as a Business Associate. It is quite likely that a well-written complaint on the HHS Office of Civil Rights site would result in further investigation and regulatory action.
software companies tend to be safe from this kind of thing (less everyday though). but they could lose their users
> Our users don’t care about security. They're not wrong. Empirically, users explicitly preferred Zoom because it lacked the "ask the user" step before starting a session. Less security is a user visible advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve had viruses and anti viruses years before I had internet. Getting a virus was trivial in the 90’s when windows had no security and any program could do anything.
Your comment is a bit ambiguous. Are you saying that even retail software could be considered a virus just because of what it can do on the system? Or was virus software making it onto the machine in other ways?