I was under the impression that Teamviewer is a safe form of remote control as:

  1. all of its traffic is encrypted;
  2. searching for Teamviewer exploits does not turn up anything.

But I recently heard it is often used to install malware. Is it possible for a hacker to use a modified version of Teamviewer that doesn't show you its activity in order to install malware? I say a modified version because I thought Teamviewer only redirects output/input, so the user will always see what the connected person is doing.

Obviously a person can copy over a virus and run it, but you would see this happening so I don't count this as a method.

  • Why would you even let someone who you don't trust connect to your PC?
    – Bomskie
    Commented May 18, 2016 at 9:10

1 Answer 1


"Obviously a person can copy over a virus and run it, but you would see this happening so I don't count this as a method."

Actually this is the method used most often with a malicious intent.

There is a scam, where you get a call from a "Microsoft"-technician. He tells you, that your computer is behaving strangely. In order to show the user, that he really is from Microsoft and can see your pc, he will tell the user the CLSID (which is the same on every windows pc) via assoc in the command line.

When the user installs Teamviewer for the "technician", he continues to show some other tricks like using "tree" or even "color c" to make you think, that your machine has a virus. Usually he offers to install antivirus-software, clean the pc, etc.

Sometimes he doesnt even bother to help you clean the pc - instead he installs an encryption-trojan and locks you out of your pc, until you pay ransom.

Scammers try to scam a lot of people and often enough the less-techsavy / older people fall for this scam.

The older users see what the technician does, but are not able to understand it!

Therefore teamviewer is used for exactly this reason when a malicious person tries to install it.

  • Your who answer focuses on the one thing I said I don't consider a threat...that's like saying it's pointless for unarmed guards to check people for contraband because if they had a gun they wouldn't be able to stop them (which is inaccurate as their job would be to phone the police, or in the case of TeamViewer terminate the connection).
    – dipdash
    Commented May 25, 2016 at 6:39
  • My answer focuses on this point because you don't consider this a threat. It is one and a very big one indeed. ... Also I don't really understand your analogy, the unarmed guards would be the less-techsavy users like an older person? Because there is a difference between the guards and the older person: The guards see that the enemy has a weapon, is therefore dangerous and can call the police or act otherwhise, while the older person does not understand that there is danger and therefore does not react to it.
    – hamena314
    Commented May 25, 2016 at 7:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .