Does Etrecheck have the blessing/approval of Apple itself?

My understanding is that simply by visiting a URL a computer can be infected with malware and the user remain completely unaware of this fact.

Your understanding is poor, at best.

While it still may be possible to get something to download and you miss the animation and download button popping up, you would still have to run the malware in order to infect yourself.

Apple does not check any software "to ensure that it is completely safe," even on the App Store. App store apps are only checked to confirm they comply with App Store rules, which may or may not make them "safe."

Does it really matter how we answer that question? You have been trolling the forum for months asking the same thing. Is there an answer that we could provide that would make you stop your trolling?

It has not been "blessed" by apple, any more than MS Office has been "blessed".

My understanding is that simply by visiting a URL a computer can be infected with malware and the user remain completely unaware of this fact.

Your understanding is wrong.

you have to apply your administrator password to infect yourself

********
[Edited by Host]

You wrote - My understanding is that simply by visiting a URL a computer can be infected with malware and the user remain completely unaware of this fact.Yes everything is possible in the internet world , the user must be alert , clicking on a link or hidden codes can install malware in Mac , even virus can be installed if the site developer has created in such a way , but its very rare .

See these links Safari Security preferences on Mac - Apple Support

Manage warnings about unsafe sites - Computer - Google Chrome Help

macOS Sierra: What is malware?

Yes, it does help explain that you are nothing more than a forum troll. Does that help?

I would very much like Apple itself to verify that the product is safe to use.

As most of your questions cannot be answered here, why don't you actually contact Apple rather than asking other users who do not have the capability to do what you want. Call Apple support and/or use the feedback options.

I, for one, prefer to use my time here to actually help people rather than waste it.

To the moderators, what exactly did I state that wasn't 100% true?

How can you take such an answer as serious from a person who had never tested it? You could use that logic in millions of conversations. Such as, "I've never owned or even driven one, but Fords are terrible automobiles." This statement, by the way, was from a person who would routinely tell people that a multi-thousand character Unix command he wrote was completely safe. There are likely less than a 100 people in the entire world who could read through that and tell you what each and every command did. But, you were simply supposed to trust it.

As far as safe? There's no way to know if a single bit of software or hardware you use is completely safe. Third party software? No more or less dangerous than the software provided by Apple. You have no idea of a disgruntled Apple engineer didn't sneak some sort of destructive trigger into a seldom used function.

What about the CPU, or other hardware components purchased by Apple to build their Macs? They didn't write a single line of code for those. So, I guess we shouldn't trust those as being safe, either.

If you want, you can download the entire source code for EtreCheck from GitHub and read through it yourself.

I work in IT. We are blocked from EtreCheck, but ironically we are blocked from most things.

Do I wish I could use it, feel it's safe, and would I though, if I weren't blocked?

Yes, yes, and yes.

I could really use it right now too *sigh*

P.S. Regarding Apple verifying the app/program, no they have not. If they had, you would see an official article that would specifically notate it as one optional app a user may consider installing based on the issue or reasoning, or an Apple advisor could directly advise you to download it as part of the troubleshooting process. The only one I'm aware of that tech support can recommend per Apple is Malwarebytes

HunterBD wrote:

In this thread from 2014 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6704451

Referring to EtreCheck, 'Linc Davis' said to me .....

"I haven't tested that program and I don't recommend it. In reports on this site, the "failed" warnings appear often. No one, including the developer, seems to know what they mean. I've seen no evidence that they mean anything at all. To do anything at all merely because of those warnings, in the absence of a functional problem, would be a waste of time. As I wrote, the results of posting "etrecheck" output can be very poor."

And ...... "I have no use for "etrecheck" output."

If you want any clarification regarding something that Linc Davis said in 2014, you are going to have to ask him. But he hasn't been active on these forums for about 2 years.

How can I be sure that connecting to the EtreCheck server and downloading the software will not, in and of itself, cause 'damage' to my computer or compromise my security?

...

I would very much like Apple itself to verify that the product is safe to use.

As others have said, that is not a service that Apple provides. If you feel that this is a service that Apple could, or should, offer, then you can submit Feedback or file a Bug Report.

Lacking any such Apple service, all you can do is consult online reviews and recommendations to see if a product is safe and legitimate. I am not going to make any attempts in this thread to demonstrate that EtreCheck is safe or legitimate. It seems like EtreCheck may be replacing ClamXAV as the object of your unwanted attention. I'm sure that would be good news for Mark Allan, but I would like you to find a different hobby. I made a sincere effort to explain some of the more confusing aspects of security software and to dissuade you from your strange anti-ClamXAV crusade. And the reward for my attempts to be helpful is that you now start an anti-EtreCheck crusade?

There is an old saying that goes something like "be careful what you ask for; you might get it." No one had any idea what your anti-ClamXAV agenda was about. Your anti-EtreCheck agenda seems more transparent. In all honesty, I would prefer that you don't use EtreCheck and avoid discussing it here in the forums, either positively or negatively. Otherwise, you might set something in motion that isn't what you would have wanted.

Kurt Lang wrote:

If you want, you can download the entire source code for EtreCheck from GitHub and read through it yourself.

That is not a suggestion that I would have made in this context. 🙂

In any case, that statement is no longer true. When I switched from donation support to a traditional software license, I could no longer publish the entire source code on Github. Otherwise, people could just generate their own licenses. Even without the source, people are actively attempting to reverse-engineer the license code and are posting cracked versions on the Internet. I'm holding my own for now, but I could sure do without distractions like this thread.