Skip to main content

https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=KB89431

Now we have to exclude that user in all our scripts. #UATwhatsUAT

$ dscl . list /Users | grep mfe
mfe
$ id mfe
uid=502(mfe) gid=20(staff) groups=20(staff),12(everyone),61(localaccounts),703(com.apple.sharepoint.group.3),704(com.apple.sharepoint.group.4),98(_lpadmin),100(_lpoperator),204(_developer),701(com.apple.sharepoint.group.1),225(com.apple.access_loginwindow),702(com.apple.sharepoint.group.2)

We need a Mcafee "support group". : )

C

@easyedc McAfee probably hired some ex Adobe engineers.

"Based on [based on MAC Engineer's] suggestion if you create less than 500 UID it will not be hidden and that's why the UID can't be less than 500."

optional image ALT text

Step 1: insult two vendors in one post

@bradtchapman

You can't call McAfee and Adobe "vendors", it's not remotely fair to companies that take the products and support seriously.

C

@easyedc Curious if there was a follow up exchange with the Peanut Gallery.

@gachowski they won't care as long as they're making money. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@mm2270 The group responsible for the horrible install.sh should have been fired a long time ago. Clearly there's some dead wood over there. The components released as flat/signed PKGs are not bad at all. Guessing they farmed out those items.

@donmontalvo

I think the install.sh is the same as how the agent is installed on linux I think that is why it didn't change when the new .pkg were rolled out. Also I think the new .pkgs were before the dump to the private company in China so I expect that the pkgs were the last thing finished before all the "mac guys" left. I don't see it getting any better as they have entered two new businesses.

https://www.skyhighnetworks.com/

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/press_release/12390593/mcafee-introduces-identity-theft-protection-service

@gachowski wrote:

...I think the new .pkgs were before the dump to the private company in China...

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement