XYMer's Home away from Home

When http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com is down (i.e. always)
It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 9:38 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 5:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:41 am
Posts: 644
Location: Halfway between New York City and Atlantic City
Stories of the recent cyber attacks indicate that those most at risk run a less-than recent version of Windows; especially versions so old they are not even able to be updated or patched. The articles I read never even mentioned Mac computers.

I'm running the latest version of MacOS Sierra: 10.12.4. My firewall is on and I allow only a scant few apps to accept incoming connections, anti-virus software is ClamXav, anti-malware software is Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, I never click on links contained in emails of unknown/questionable origin, I do not use the Cloud... for anything, and Time Machine backs up my boot drive hourly.

I'd like to think I'm pretty well-protected. But... am I? Is there anything more I can do to prevent having my files held for ransom?

Thanks!

_________________
I am a proud Aspie. I wonder about and see things in a very literal, logical and pragmatic manner. Thus:
"The only spin that is of any real value is that which follows the rinse cycle."

MacMini 2.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 16 GB RAM, OS 10.12.5


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 5:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 5822
Location: NYC
Ransomware for OS X is basically almost--but not quite--non existent. There have been two quite lame attempts, both of which were shut down almost as soon as they appeared. The first that appeared, KeRanger, was an exploit aimed at those using Transmission. The second one I believe was also directed towards those Mac users who frequent Torrents.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/cybercrim ... e-spotted/

There have been any number of "fake" ransomware attacks which try to simulate real ransomware, but which only lock up the browser using endless JavaScript loops. These are easily defeated.

As far as I know, the Firewall only restricts connections to OS X servers--or "server like" elements of OS X. It does nothing to protect against malware at the client. Unless you are going somewhere where you will not be behind a router, you can safely leave it turned off. Although you might want to keep stealth mode enabled. And only leave Sharing (out of local network) enabled for the most necessary services. I keep all that turned off, except for local file and screen sharing.

Of course, all this doesn't mean that there won't be new, more energetic attempts at real ransomware for OS X. And as you already know, never open an attachment from an unknown sender--or even an attachment included in a forwarded e-mail from someone you do know (who knows what they're sending on, if only innocently), and you should stay pretty safe. In fact, I basically hardly ever open forwarded messages, period.

T.Reed's blog, stays fairly current with the latest threats.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/cybercrim ... e-eleanor/

As for malware, and trusting known sites with good reputations, a number of people downloaded a recent Handbrake update, where the legitimate site was hacked, and were infected with malware. Although it was detected and shut down within a period of a few days, not much you could have done against that. As usual, the problem with any kind of A-V, including Apple's XProtect, is that it can't protect against brand new, yet to be cataloged exploits, such as the Handbrake incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 8:07 am 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 14420
W has it covered pretty well I'd say. :)

Backup, Backup, Clone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9247
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Ransomware almost exclusively relies on someone on your network either downloading and executing a file from the internet from a non-trustworthy source (e.g. pirated or "free" software, email attachments, etc.) or someone on your network doing the same and the malware spreads from their system to yours using unpatched or zero day (no patches available) vulnerabilities.

So long as you don't use email to send or receive files (you really should be using an FTP or web-based service for that) or download "free" games and similarly suspect "free" software then you're probably safe.

I say probably because there are drive-by infections you can get just by visiting a website with a malicious ad, but most of them utilize outdated browser plugins (of which you probably only have to worry about Flash, unless you're still using Safari, in which case you have to worry about every plugin you have installed - Flash, Acrobat, Java, Silverlight, etc.).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9609
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
The recent scourge of Windows ransomware was built on an SMB worm: the ransomware actively propagated itself across SMB network shares, so no user interaction was necessary for infection.

It is conceivable a similar vulnerability could target Macs, so disabling any unneeded network services is always prudent. But that brings up a second point, security questions aside, if you don't use a service what good can it possibly to do to run it?

The firewall as it's set up in OS X is mostly a tool for blocking access to network services running on your computer that you haven't turned off. It's possible for a firewall to do a little more than this, but it really only protects you from connecting to certain services or hosts, or them connecting to you. They're not protection from general malice.

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9247
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
To be fair, its not like those SMB shares are open to the internet. Someone in that organization had to infect their system as the origin point, which probably was done via an emailed attachment. From there it spread. Most ransomware infections I've looked into started out via emailed attachments. Typically impersonating someone inside the organization but occasionally it's just a variation on the ILoveYou worm enticing someone silly enough to open the attachment.

Thankfully my workplace wouldn't be bitten by this last version even if they ran the attachment because I force patches down everyone's throats whether they want them or not. Oddly enough the Macs at my place are more likely to be outdated since so many of them are public systems afflicted by the tragedy of the commons. When nobody takes ownership of something, nobody cares about it until its gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 969
Location: Melbourne
MonkeyBoy wrote:
Oddly enough the Macs at my place are more likely to be outdated since so many of them are public systems afflicted by the tragedy of the commons. When nobody takes ownership of something, nobody cares about it until its gone.

This is somewhat similar to what I've learned with having a cheap android phone. The open source software is largely unsupported after the sale. I might have missed the clause in the fine print, 'Hey, what do you expect for $60?' It should come with a sticker, 'Use at your own risk'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9247
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Well most Android phones aren't updated to newer OS versions, but they do receive security updates for quite some time after purchase. Eventually, though, the updates fall off. I'm still getting security updates for 6.0 and the girl I gave my 5.5 to is still getting them too (at least it was the last time she asked me to look at it).

I'm debating whether to root my phone or not... its the only way I'm going to clear off a couple GB of preloaded apps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 2384
Location: Inside Flatus Maximus
MikeHarrison wrote:
Stories of the recent cyber attacks indicate that those most at risk run a less-than recent version of Windows; especially versions so old they are not even able to be updated or patched. The articles I read never even mentioned Mac computers.

I'm running the latest version of MacOS Sierra: 10.12.4. My firewall is on and I allow only a scant few apps to accept incoming connections, anti-virus software is ClamXav, anti-malware software is Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, I never click on links contained in emails of unknown/questionable origin, I do not use the Cloud... for anything, and Time Machine backs up my boot drive hourly.

I'd like to think I'm pretty well-protected. But... am I? Is there anything more I can do to prevent having my files held for ransom?

Thanks!


Time machines that are connected to the computer will also be encrypted. You really need to also make a fully bootable clone of your primary OS and/or data drive(s) every so often and keep them offline. Only offline volumes are truly invulnerable to malware/ransomware. In today's age of ransomware, secondary offline backups are a must.

Quote:
I say probably because there are drive-by infections you can get just by visiting a website with a malicious ad, but most of them utilize outdated browser plugins (of which you probably only have to worry about Flash, unless you're still using Safari, in which case you have to worry about every plugin you have installed - Flash, Acrobat, Java, Silverlight, etc.).


Drive-bys can happen because of site operators using shady as shit advertising hosts too. Wowhead.com is a huge example of this, and to make things worse, they actually told users that if they wanted to be free of the thousands of ad reloads per hour on an open page of their site that they should pay the premium account upgrade fee. Yes, wowhead actually uses extortion because it has zero incentive to do otherwise and its site admins don't give a flying fuck about anything other than the "here and now" revenue. And if you use something like µBlock Origin (AdBlock/ABP is pay to whitelist, so fuck that shit), what the site will do is increase the number of ad load/reload attempts per minute to measure in the hundreds. After just one day of leaving a single page open during their gaming sessions, a user noted nearly one hundred thirty four THOUSAND blocked connections in µBlock's notification pane.

Don't think that just because you have up to date plugins and browsers that you aren't vulnerable. With that many ads being shoved at you, even if only one is laden with malware, it's likely to come up again and again and if you aren't using the right ad blocker (and µBlock Origin Extras for Chrome/Firefox, which can at least partially thwart anti-adblocker backdoor attacks and randomized DIV classes), you're hosed.

_________________
Official Mac Tech Support Forum Cookie™ (Mint Chocolate Chip)
Guaranteed tasty; Potentially volatile when dipped in WWIII Forum Syrup®
Caution: This cookie bites back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 7:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 5822
Location: NYC
Quote:
(AdBlock/ABP is pay to whitelist, so fuck that shit)

I'm not here to defend ABP's shady business practices, but it needs pointing out (once again) that if the default "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" (unfortunately hidden away in Filter Preferences) is unchecked, then you are clear of that paying whitelist. I've been using ABP for years, and unchecked that option as soon as it appeared, back in 2012, I believe. It does a remarkably good job of blocking ads. I tried out uBlock Origin briefly, but its UI was all too clunky and difficult to use to block specific images or page elements. ABP gets there right away from a right-click on any image.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:44 am 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 14420
Thanks W, certainly is escapable to notice... mine ws checked, though I thought I went through this in the past... maybe new or different install.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:51 pm
Posts: 428
Location: Minnesota, USA
ABP is relatively upfront about their whitelist policy. Maybe they do get paid by people but on the whole it seems to do a good job at blocking ads. I can understand the whitelist rationale since ultimately somebody has to pay for the web and as long as they keep the real slimeballs from getting through then I guess I will live with it. There are certain ads which I am willing to tolerate such as a small static image, but I really dislike intrusive things such as pop-ups and videos that automatically start playing. What I hate are websites where they ask you to disable adblockers so they can get revenue from advertisers (okay, I won't like it but understand their reasoning), but when you do that they then blast you with stuff, particularly junk like MacKeeper ads.

I just downloaded UB to give it a try. I have to admit configuration does take quite a bit of understanding. It's essentially based upon working around various settings files, enabling disabled items where desired and adding a disabling rule where needed. The thing is, it isn't easy to find out what exactly all the different files actually do. It seems to be a combination of ABP, Ghostery, Privacy Badger and NoScript all behind an intermediate level user configuration interface. I'll just see if it breaks any of my frequently visited sites. Mostly those kind of tools work for me with default settings but sometimes I need some detailed configuration such as hiding an element on a website (had to do that with Facebook since I don't have an account and they had a nag thingy blocking the bottom half of every page I needed to view on one occasion). Element blocking was easy with ABP. It is also there with UB but you have to read through scattered and poorly labeled user tips until you can see how it is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9247
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
UBO includes a couple options that I recommend everyone enable, basically filters to detect the sites that block users with ad blockers enabled from visiting the site. They tend to be a little cat and mouse where the site changes and then the filter has to be updated, but from the user standpoint it's fairly transparent aside from short hiccups here and there after an individual site updates. UBO's interface is kind of ugly but oddly powerful at the same time. It tends to incorporate features normally found in adblock plus add-ons like adblock plus element hiding in UBO itself. You can add in filters up the wazoo with minimal effort, although building your own filters is oddly challenging... I haven't figured out their syntax yet.

The entire reason I use adblockers is because most advertising networks don't adequately screen the people buying ads, or inspect the ads they're hosting, leading to malware hosted on ad services. Until they clean up their act I have zero sympathy for advertising networks and very minimal sympathy for sites. Once a site gets above a certain size they don't need a network, networks are just easier than building their own ad framework and drumming up advertisers. Starting out sites don't have an option except to foot the entire bill themselves, which sucks, and that's the fault of the ad network, not the site.

I honestly don't have a problem with ABP's whitelist feature. I've looked at a couple of the ads they whitelisted a while ago and they genuinely seem to be unobtrusive and not the annoying variety that drove people to create ad blockers in the first place (malware came later). Its not just a "hey we pay you and you show our ads" it's more like "we work with you to get your ad to not be ridiculously stupid and then pay us to let abp show it." That they give you the option to turn it off seems straightforward and anyone who doesn't look in options to do it has only themselves to blame (esp. since they should be going in there to add in more than the default filter list).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 2384
Location: Inside Flatus Maximus
WZZZ wrote:
Quote:
(AdBlock/ABP is pay to whitelist, so fuck that shit)

I'm not here to defend ABP's shady business practices, but it needs pointing out (once again) that if the default "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" (unfortunately hidden away in Filter Preferences) is unchecked, then you are clear of that paying whitelist. I've been using ABP for years, and unchecked that option as soon as it appeared, back in 2012, I believe. It does a remarkably good job of blocking ads. I tried out uBlock Origin briefly, but its UI was all too clunky and difficult to use to block specific images or page elements. ABP gets there right away from a right-click on any image.

Image


Turn on µBlock's advanced option. You can fine tune your preferences per page/site there. Also, its picker is light years better at detecting class DIVs than ABP's. You need to select "Block element..." and then click on the blocker window and choose Pick. Then you can mouse over the element you want to block and it does a damn good job of finding frames at every strata, though the new "whitelist us" popups run by Admiral for many sites is a challenge for any blocker as it uses randomized DIV classes per session.

_________________
Official Mac Tech Support Forum Cookie™ (Mint Chocolate Chip)
Guaranteed tasty; Potentially volatile when dipped in WWIII Forum Syrup®
Caution: This cookie bites back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 5822
Location: NYC
Back to ransomware, a hypothetical question: if one shuts down, then reboots directly to the startup manager, aka bootpicker, are the drives which appear for selection, including the internal drive, mounted or not?

Reason I ask is my strategy were I to become infected with ransomware (Mac) would be to restore directly from a pre-ransomware CCC clone (my EHDs normally only powered on and mounted for the ten minutes or so it takes to do a backup.) But if the internal drive is mounted while selecting a drive at the startup manager, it might be able to immediately encrypt or corrupt the external before the restore could proceed, thus completely the defeating the restore. And related question: in order to do a restore with CCC (or any other program, including DU Restore) is the internal normally mounted--wonder if the backup could be corrupted from the infected internal during the restore?

Bottom line question: how to safely restore a backup if infected by ransomware, or any form of malware with the potential to affect a connected, mounted drive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 10:16 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9609
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
If you hold down the option key, the system loads code from the firmware. The volumes shown are fully accessible by system, but OS X hasn't booted. In the unlikely event that the ransomware has infected the computer's firmware, then it might conceivably be able to do something to any drive the system can physically detect. There are, however, a couple mitigations: 1) most such software isn't that sophisticated, would be a lot more work, and wouldn't gain very many more victims, hence possibly a poor investment; and 2) since encrypting a file requires rewriting it, the ransomware cannot instantly encrypt everything; 3) if you're already using an encrypted drive and haven't entered your password yet, then the ransomware can't see individual files on that drive to begin with (I don't think OS X asks for a password for a FileVault encrypted drive until it starts to boot from that drive, but someone should correct me if I'm wrong -- I haven't tried booting from an alternate disk on a FileVault-enabled system).

Most ransomware appears to individually encrypt each file so that the computer keeps operating and only the data are rendered inaccessible. For example, the recent headline-grabbing infection had a list of file extensions that it looked for when it encrypted your data for ransom. It is conceivable that smart OS X ransomware could overwrite the FileVault encryption key, then make changes to the EFI partition to show you the ransom message since that might render OS X unbootable if installed on the same drive. The FileVault trick would, however, only work (by itself) for FileVault partitions. Otherwise it's got to rewrite every file of interest.

But alas, I digress.

Assuming the firmware hasn't been compromised, to recover you'd boot from an alternate drive, nuke-and-pave with your uninfected backup, and carry on. If your firmware is compromised, you'd boot from a read-only volume, hope really hard that you can restore your firmware, then proceed as before.

At this point I'll cross the ransomware-in-firmware bridge when I come to it.

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9247
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Firmware infections are fairly rare because each make/model requires a different firmware. In theory Apple's hardware represents a smaller target with fewer models but its still hundreds of models. Apple's flash is also typically left in read-only mode, switching it into write mode requires a reboot with lots of flashing lights and a long beep, which tends to freak people out and cause them to power off systems (at which point the system becomes a useless lump and the criminal has lost all access to it).

It would probably be easier to infect the EFI partition, but that typically isn't loaded until the OS is loaded, so holding down option and booting off an alternate drive would bypass it.

Firmware infections are typically the realm of nation state actors, who intercept packages, rewrite the flash, put systems back into identical boxes, seal them up with manufacturer tape, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 5822
Location: NYC
Great information Anon. Thanks for that. Btw, you mention File Vault, has it become any less evil in recent iterations? Any good reasons for using it now? I remember one of the most concerning issues used to be that one needed at least as much free space as was taken up by the encrypted volume in order to unencrypt.That used to mess up a lot of people. Is that still the case?

MB: very interesting on why it's difficult to infect Mac firmware. Had heard about models getting infected at the factory or on the way. Wonder if anyone has attempted a MITM to convince some hapless soul that his computer needs a firmware upgrade?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9609
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
The original incarnations of VileFault had some significant drawbacks: originally the key needed to be rewritten whenever the encrypted sparse disk image was expanded, which all but guaranteed that something would go horribly wrong eventually and you'd lose all your precious data forever. This was shortly fixed, but other problems with the disk image based VileFault persisted. If a recovery key was set, its security was only 1024 bits RSA key, which is not enough. Turning VileFault on or off required a lot of extra disk space. Only the user directory was encrypted. Time Machine didn't back up encrypted user directories while the user was logged in. Etc, etc...

These drawbacks might not be enough to suggest you shouldn't use it, but they were serious limitations.

The current versions of FileVault have differe drawbacks. It now uses full disk encryption rather than per-account disk images. This means that encrypting your drive can take place while you're using it, and allows Time Machine to back up FileVault protected systems even while the user is logged in. Conversely, if you want to turn off FileVault, you only need to turn it off and restart the computer, then decryption will proceed in place while you're using the computer. One potential down side is that accounts are not encrypted relative to one another. If you have multiple users on the system, they'll all need to passphrase to start up or log in, and once logged in can (in principle) see the unencrypted files of other users. You could layer per-user encryption (old style FileVault done manually with encrypted disk images) on top of full disk encryption, but that's a pain and reintroduces the old FileVault problems.

Anyway, yeah, I'm much more agreeable about it now. If you have a portable computer I'd strongly recommend it. If you have a desktop it's definitely worth considering.

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 4:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 969
Location: Melbourne
I've read that the startup sequence is when POST completes, the system gets the booter file from the firmware, and boots the OS.
But on pressing Option thus invoking the Startup Manager, where does the system become aware of those bootable possiblities; from the volumes themselves?

I think so because I have a long row of bootable volumes including modern OS installers showing. And even after restarting if I forget to have one external disk turned on, with the volume that I want, switching it on mid-restart, will get it there by the time Startup Manager presents the selection.

I think the booterfile in the firmware is what gets saved when you select Startup Disk from an OS Preferences GUI.
At present my Macintosh HD is defective and doesn't show up when I do Restart Option, which is no problem as I don't want it, but it is not presented because it is fooked. So the Startup Manager is sampling what is available as bootable, not referring to the firmware. Or more precisely, the default volume in the firmware is gone and is not displayed as a choosable volume.

I'm presuming the Startup Manager is in the firmware and is reading some primary status from each available volume and boots it once the choice is made.

Which getting back to WZZZ' question, are these external volumes semi available? I'd say they are to the firmware but whether a corrupted OS (an OS being an event post firmware) could interfere with such a volume would be beyond current ransomware malhackery, which concurs with the advice given. But I just wanted to tease the Startup procedure out a bit more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 6:19 am 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 14420
Quote:
if I forget to have one external disk turned on, with the volume that I want, switching it on mid-restart, will get it there by the time Startup Manager presents the selection.


You can even switch on or plug in drives while it sits on the option boot screen & the new drives will show up in a bit, some OS X in the past you needed to click the 3/4 circle to relook for drives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9247
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Startup Manager / System Picker (I like to call it SP because it looks very similar to an old System 6/7 utility called System Picker, though SP was more powerful since it let you boot multiple OSes from a single volume) lives in the firmware.

System Picker scans all available buses for storage devices then scans those storage devices for operating systems that it understands. This can be done at any time, even after SP has finished its scans, at least for hot pluggable buses (plugging in a SATA drive to a SATA bus may not yield a change, but USB, whatever connection they're calling Thunderbolt this week, or Firewire will). As BD mentions, old (PPC) systems require a manual refresh after SP has finished to pick up on changes, but it will detect changes.

Startup Disk (the app, in a booted OS) sets an nvram variable that the firmware looks at to determine the startup disk. Change the startup disk and you change the nvram variable. This is why you end up with the ? at startup when you disconnect the startup disk, the firmware looks at the nvram, looks for the disk, doesn't find it, then presents the ?.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 1:22 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 14420
Thanks MB.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 969
Location: Melbourne
So as a non-computer technician my understanding of the multiple boot scenario was largely spot on. That's cool.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 14420
:D :coffee:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group