We're not talking about "unsafe programs". We're talking about ordinary programs which are monitored to see if an update is available. Knowing which applications VS monitors would be of no use to a virus author. Or do you think that if that author knew that Firefox was being monitored, he would say, "Okay, McAfee's watching Firefox for updates. I better write a new virus for it."
You guys' performance is assessed based on how many and how quickly you get these questions answered, right? That's why you're so eager to say this one's answered?
This has nothing to do with viruses and no, we are not scored in any way on how we answer questions as we are unpaid volunteers here. I say we, meaning the Moderators as I was one for many years.
McAfee has never divulged how their programmes work, that's protecting their copyrights, patents, etc, so we/I can't tell you how any particular application actually works.
The question here is why can't you take no for an answer?
Thank you for volunteering your time. Folks appreciate that. I'm one of them.
To answer your question, why I can't take no for an answer: it's all about the way you answered my posts. The first couple showed a misunderstanding of the question, or at least of what would answer it. But to tell me the list differs from machine to machine displayed a fundamental lack of knowledge of how programs like this work. So I explained it using Firefox as an example. That was followed your replies, "every piece of software available on the web" and "what's installed on your computer". Oh, jeez (facepalm). At this point I gave a quick explanation showing why it is neither "every piece of software available on the web" nor "what's installed on your computer" that VS monitors. There are millions, probably billions of applications like mine, CDOpen.exe, available on the web, which VS knows nothing about. CDOpen.exe is installed on my computer, but VS doesn't monitor it. So we see that neither of those answers was correct.
In that same answer to you, I showed you how programs like this work: they have to have a database containing the names of all the applications it's possible for them to monitor. The program takes that database list of names and checks a specific computer to see if any of those programs are installed. If a program in the database list is found on the computer, it checks for an update on it. If a program in the database list is not found on the computer, VS moves on to the next one in the list, until it's finished checking the list against what's installed on the computer.
Still with me? I'm answering your question. I'm not being smart-alecky or trolling. You asked, and here's your answer.
Up to this point I was simply trying to get you to understand what I was asking. Since you didn't understand how the program works, you didn't understand how, where, or why there would be a list. I had to 1) Realize that you didn't understand the program, which took a few posts; 2) Explain how it works to you, so that you could then answer me correctly; 3) Try to determine whether you understood my explanation; and 4) If you understood, try to get you to answer my question. So it took a few posts to get to this point.
Then you started describing what I was doing with "determined to know" and "imperative". What was that for? Because I kept posting? I kept posting because the answers you gave were wrong, and I was looking for the right one. There's nothing "determined" or "imperative" about that. Pretty much anybody posting a question on a forum will keep posting when the answers given are wrong.
I'm not really clear on what happened during the "asking" posts. It seemed garbled. But catdaddy's post said he asked, so I accepted that. Afterward was just some musing about the pointlessness of keeping the list secret when VS is nothing more than a program that checks whether a program's owners/authors have released an update. There's nothing that needs protection in that. On the other hand, I have the right to know what any program on my computer does, in detail. Saying "it protects you. That's all you need to know" has a disturbingly Orwellian ring to it.
Also we are asking in 15mins so will see what they say. Peter only considered this as answered as we seem to be looping around and not getting anywhere. As he said we get no kudos or even thanks much for helping here we are users as you are.