 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / April 2006Mac OS X Available/Recommended Anti-Virus Apps
In article <1145529718.792721.119350@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Deirdre" <dhonner@gmail.com> wrote: > Derek - > > What do you use for your anti-virus, etc if you don't use Symantec? I > am new to the Mac and am looking for comprehensive protection. > > Thanks - > > Deirdre I am glad to help. This thread is a spinoff from the previous thread 'Yet Another Symantec Problem' where I reported yet-another Symantec Norton Anti-Virus security hole. I NEVER recommend folks use NAV for many reasons. Here are the alternatives for MOSX currently available that I am aware of: 1) Virex: $40.21 per license (but note that you have to buy 5 licenses at a time). I have been using Virex for many years. In the days of Mac OS 7, 8 an 9 it was easily the best due to a nice feature where it checked if files had been modified since the last time it had run. Its speed was remarkably fast because it knew when it could skip over files it had previously checked. Then McAfee bought it, tossed out the old programming and made it just another anti-virus program without any speed advantage. But I have stuck with it. The fact that it was free at .Mac until 2006 has helped. Great things that remains about Virex are that its virus definitions are updated for FREE very regularly, McAfee have a top notch virus information center, and I have never heard of it messing with anyone's system. It simply works. Well, actually I have read about the virex background engine, called VShield, hogging the CPU. In reality it only does this if you have its services activated in the Virex preferences, and only when your CPU is otherwise at rest. VShield is set with a low CPU priority. If it bothers you it is very easy to remove it from your startup items. It really serves no purpose, so far, since there are still no Mac viruses 'in the wild' to worry about. Instead you should regularly start up the Virex application alone and have it check your entire computer on a regular basis. I do this at very least every time there is a new virus definitions update, which is about every 2 weeks. Occasionally it discovers some Windows virus sent to me in email. I have never had it report a false-positive virus discovery (unlike Norton Anti-Virus!). Sadly, McAfee now only sell Virex 7.7, the latest MOSX 10.4 compatible version, in lots of 5. You can't buy individual copies. I've talked to them about this, but they refuse to provide alternatives. They only want to sell Virex to enterprise computing environments. You can download a demo version. <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10355> <http://www.mcafee.com/us/enterprise/products/anti_virus/file_servers_des ktops/virex.html> 2) ClamXav: FREE, Open Source and cross platform. It's virus definitions are regularly updated. But it is very primitive and clunky. With time it is getting better. Sadly, a few weeks ago a number of security vulnerabilities were been found in the current version. (Echoes of Symantec!). But it much better than not using an anti-virus at all. I expect it's holes will be patched in the coming month. The patches have already begun on Linux and will soon filter over to Mac. Other points: If you dig around you can find a beta version that worked on MOSX 10.2.x. Don't bother, it is total garbage. Also, ClamXav is incompatible with MOSX Server 10.4.x. It has been reported to conflict with some other applications like TigerCacheCleaner. Its scheduling system has problems. <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24449> <http://www.markallan.co.uk/clamXav/> 3) Intego VirusBarrier: $70 + $30 per year for virus definition updates (after the first year). This is the newcomer to the anti-virus business. But it already has a better reputation than Virex, going by ratings over at Version Tracker. It is a Universal Binary that runs natively on Macintels. It has a niffy kewl GUI, and has built-in automated virus definition updates. Its best feature is the one that Virex used to have: Speed. It indexes as it scans, allowing it to skip files that have not been modified. Instabilities have been reported, as well as a propensity to toss up annoying modal message boxes. Thankfully Intego keep improving it with regular updates. My reservation here is the money sucking. No way do I want buy into a virus application so I can pay $30 per year for new virus definitions. I could justify paying if I ran a facility of Macs, but not for just me and my PowerBook. There is no demo available. <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16289> <http://www.intego.com/virusbarrier/> 4) Sophos Anti-Virus: $?? (The price is not available on their website. You know what that means). This is a professional grade virus program, designed for businesses with a network of computers. The Sophos virus information center is excellent. It is a great place to visit regularly even if you never use their software. As for the program itself, the debate about it is quite contentious. Some people have found it buggy and unstable. Some consider the GUI out of date. It has been known to make false-positive virus discoveries. And then there are some people who like it just fine. They have a 30 day demo. You want the standalone Mac OS X version. <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/9815> <http://www.sophos.com/products/es/endpoint-server/sav-mac.html> 5) TigerCacheCleaner: $9 shareware. It had to happen, and I am glad TigerCacheCleaner did it first. This inexpensive shareware program integrates ClamXav virus scanning, including scheduling! It is a Universal Binary that runs natively on Macintels. The only problems I have read about are instability and occasionally flaky behavior. Thankfully it is regularly updated. Beside virus checking this utility does nearly 40 other things related to Mac OS X. Essentially it integrates the abilities of scores of other utilities at a decent price. NOTE: TCC is supposed to work on MOSX 10.1 - 10.4.x. I have not verified this. It is typical for Universal Binaries to only work on MOSX 10.3.9 and above, despite claims to the contrary. Also Note: The developer is offering a bundle of TCC with their Lights Out program for $1 more. "Lights Out is an application designed to give users more control over Apple's Energy Saver." Check their website. <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16494> <http://www.northernsoftworks.com/tigercachecleaner.html> CONCLUSIONS: - Intego VirusBarrier gets the bells and whistles award. But you pay for it, every year. - Virex works fine, but you basically have to already have it, or obtain it by some circuitous route, to use it. Virex 7.2.1 and 7.6/7.7 work fine with MOSX 10.4.x. Virex 7.5.1 does not, only with 10.2.x and 10.3.x. - ClamXav is a good idea and very decent for free, but it is not exactly ready for prime time. - TigerCacheCleaner looks like a better alternative to the ClamXav application, providing all its capabilities along with a zillion other features for cheap. - Forget about Sophos software unless you are an enterprise. But most definitely visit their website to learn about viruses! It is a great place. Further EXCELLENT information about Mac OS X malware and vulnerabilities is available from Secunia. You can sign up for their weekly summary email list. You can visit them at: <http://secunia.com/> Every week (or so) I post a 'Mac Security' thread here at CSMA and CSMS where you can find out the latest news being reported regarding MOSX vulnerabilites and patches. :-Derek  SignatureFortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today? Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/> [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975] In article <derekcurrie-5379EB.13575120042006@syrcnyrdrs-02-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>, > 5) TigerCacheCleaner: $9 shareware. It had to happen, and I am glad > TigerCacheCleaner did it first. This inexpensive shareware program [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this. It is typical for Universal Binaries to only work on MOSX 10.3.9 > and above, despite claims to the contrary. UPDATE! Tiger Cache Cleaner v3.1.3 runs like a charm on Mac OS X 10.2.8. Let me save you some time if you want to use TCC as a virus checker. Open the manual PDF file and read the section about Clam. (Do a find on the word 'clam'). It will tell you how to install ClamXav, which is included in the TCC's resources, and how to update the virus definitions. It takes a few minutes. Then when you want to schedule a regular scan of your machine, go to the app's 'Special' menu and select the last choice, 'Automate Operation...'. Everything you need is there including a pop-up menu with various time intervals. Radi-kewlness. This is hella-better than the ClamXav GUI app if you ask me. My eyes are still oggling at all the other stuff this thing will do.... Create a RAM Disk?! Interesting... Coming up, my test of TCC on Mac OS X 10.1.5, installed and run over VNC. :-D SignatureFortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today? Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/> [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975] In article <derekcurrie-ECFAC8.17520420042006@syrcnyrdrs-02-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>, > > NOTE: TCC is supposed to work on MOSX 10.1 - 10.4.x. I have not verified > > this. It is typical for Universal Binaries to only work on MOSX 10.3.9 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Coming up, my test of TCC on Mac OS X 10.1.5, installed and run over VNC. Boohoo. Tiger Cache Cleaner does NOT work on Mac OS X Server 10.1.5. I doubt it would work on regular 10.1.5 either. So sorry! At least VNC runs wicked great on 10.1.5 using OSXvnc. My favorite client is VNCThing. Some people like Chicken of the VNC instead. :-D SignatureFortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today? Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/> [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975] Considering there are no viruses or spyware for OS X, why do you need this crap mucking up your system? > Considering there are no viruses or spyware for OS X, why do you need > this crap mucking up your system? It is comments like that which feed the wintrolls with spew to spray back at us, calling us callous about security. No way am I putting up with that accusation! 5 'proof-of-concept' pieces of malware exist for Mac OS X, each of which proves the possibility of real malware for Mac OS X. And, you can bet that some berzerker/cracker will implement such vulnerabilities into a viable 'in the wild' piece of malware. So, Derek sez: BE PREPARED. There is no excuse for not having an anti-virus on your Mac. Clam is a 100% free, cross platform, frequently updated, anti-virus program. You can use it via the free GUI application ClamXav. But I recommend Mac users spend $5 for the better Clam implementation in Tiger Cache Cleaner. TCC also gives you about 40 other kewl features you will find useful. :-Derek SignatureFortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today? Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/> [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975] Entity Derek Currie uttered this profundity: > It is comments like that which feed the wintrolls with spew to spray > back at us, Ironically enough, the only reason you will ever need antivirus software on a Mac is to catch the viruses in the Virtual PC/Windows file. ClamAV does a fine job of that. But if someone wants AV protection out of fear, I wouldn't tell them they are a fool... -- Gnarlie http://Gnarlodious.com/ > Entity Derek Currie uttered this profundity: > > > It is comments like that which feed the wintrolls with spew to spray > > back at us, > Ironically enough, the only reason you will ever need antivirus software on > a Mac is to catch the viruses in the Virtual PC/Windows file. That's not true. There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X exploits. As long as OS X continues to gain popularity with these people there will eventually be reason to need AV software. Never say never. Greg > There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and > blackhats into finding OS X exploits. As long as OS X continues to gain > popularity with these people there will eventually be reason to need AV > software. Never say never. ~yawn~ Wake me up when you find one. m-m -- > > There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and > > blackhats into finding OS X exploits. As long as OS X continues to gain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ~yawn~ > Wake me up when you find one. I'm sure the ignoramuses like you will be the first to find them. Greg G.T. wrote (in article <124qvd1fuku4047@corp.supernews.com>): >>> There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and >>> blackhats into finding OS X exploits. As long as OS X continues to gain [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm sure the ignoramuses like you will be the first to find them. Although that is almost certainly true, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the current virus products for the Mac do anything at all besides consume disk space and other resources. Until we actually have viruses (not phishing expeditions) in the wild for OS X, we have no idea of how to evalutate products for their ability to provide protection. The current products seem capable of finding files infected with windows virus signatures, so that they can be stripped before they might get copied to a windows system somewhow. And very little else, besides slow down the system. SignatureLefty All of God's creatures have a place.......... .........right next to the potatoes and gravy. See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif > G.T. wrote > (in article <124qvd1fuku4047@corp.supernews.com>): [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wild for OS X, we have no idea of how to evalutate products for > their ability to provide protection. No disagreement here. But at least we'll be able to evaluate those who already have a Mac product available when that day comes. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > > > There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and > > > blackhats into finding OS X exploits. As long as OS X continues to gain [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm sure the ignoramuses like you will be the first to find them. You dicks don't understand. It has nothing to do with market share. It has everything to do with how the operating system is designed. > There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and > blackhats into finding OS X exploits. Cite, please? >>There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and >>blackhats into finding OS X exploits. > > Cite, please? It just takes looking at the increase in number of discovered exploits in the last two years and the variety of names on those discoveries. ================================================================== "Increased Activity Though none of the threats are considered especially serious, the emergence of such code is significant all the same for Apple users, Dunham said. "It shows increased activity and viability for future Macintosh-based threats on the Mac OS X platform," Dunham said, pointing out that the last major Macintosh threat was the Autostart worm in 1998. "As a result, many Macintosh users are more likely to be complacent toward computer security and therefore are more likely to be vulnerable to any future threats that emerge against the Macintosh operating system," he said. "For some Mac users, this can be somewhat of a wake-up call," said Craig Schmuger, virus research manager at McAfee. Going forward, Macintosh users can almost certainly expect to see an increase both in the number of vulnerabilities discovered in the technology and in code designed to exploit them, Schmuger said. But it's important for Mac users to have the right perspective on the issue, said Vincent Weafer, senior director of security response at Symantec. "You are no more at risk than a week ago, but it is a good time to go back and take a look at your security practices," he said. When it comes to vulnerabilities in its software, Apple has had its share. Over the past two years, for instance, Apple has issued about 58 advisories relating to vulnerabilities in its software, compared to 127 for Windows XP, Weafer said. "What is hugely different, though, [when compared to Microsoft] is the number of attacks on the Windows side versus the Macintosh side," he said." ================================================================= Do you really think guys like Tom Ferris were looking at OS X two, three years ago? No, he was looking at Windows and Linux. "Ferris's work is the latest indication that the security community is starting to take a much closer look at potential vulnerabilities in OS X. "Apple is basically becoming a bigger target because researchers are realizing the potential impact is higher than it was before because more people are using it," Ferris said. "Plus, OS X is Unix-based and a lot of researchers and hackers started out on UNIX- and Linux-based systems finding bugs, so for them it's like being back home again." " Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > >>There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and > >>blackhats into finding OS X exploits. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It just takes looking at the increase in number of discovered exploits > in the last two years and the variety of names on those discoveries. There's nothing about crackers and blackhats in the article you quote. And all the predictions about bad things for Mac are, in fact, from people whose living relies on people being afraid of viruses and bad guys. Vested interest and all that... So, again, can you cite figures demonstrating that "There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X exploits"? Thought not... >>>>There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and >>>>blackhats into finding OS X exploits. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people whose living relies on people being afraid of viruses and bad > guys. Vested interest and all that... Yeah, vested interest with published exploits. Who cares what the motivation is? Keep your head buried in the sand. > So, again, can you cite figures demonstrating that "There is clearly > more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X > exploits"? Whatever. You think there's no crossover between the blackhats and the people with "vested interests" who actually publish? Dream on. The published stuff is just the tip of the iceburg. And forget what I said about "crackers and blackhats". The point is there are many more published exploits than there were just a year ago. Those exploits published by those with "vested interests" can still be used to attack unpatched systems. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > > So, again, can you cite figures demonstrating that "There is clearly > > more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people with "vested interests" who actually publish? Dream on. The > published stuff is just the tip of the iceburg. In other words, you have no facts to back up your spew. "Clearly". Again, can you cite figures demonstrating that "There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X exploits"? I thought not. You're just another w.nker. >>>So, again, can you cite figures demonstrating that "There is clearly >>>more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I thought not. You're just another w.nker. Whatever. Keep your head buried in the sand. It's befitting. Ignore all the new exploits that come out daily, whether they're from "blackhats", "crackers", from your next door neighbor, or your next door neighbor's dog. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons The reason for my original posts stems from my rote behavior in using my Windows machines -spending a couple hours each weekend updating all the updates for all the protection. I found this article, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_CA_Apple_Security.html and this quote: - The SANS Institute, a computer-security organization in Bethesda, Md., added OS X to its 2005 list of the 20 top Internet vulnerabilities. It was the first time the Apple operating system has been included since the experts started compiling the list in 2000. and this article http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/042106-mac-bugs.html with this quote: Long considered to be more secure than Microsoft's Windows operating system, Mac OS X has increasingly been the focus of security researchers like Ferris. In February a number of malicious programs, including one called OSX/Leap, were released targeting the Macintosh. --Deirdre > The reason for my original posts stems from my rote behavior in using > my Windows machines -spending a couple hours each weekend updating all > the updates for all the protection. But the articles you quote do not support the contention "There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X exploits". The Seattle PI article says "To be fair, real-world attacks of Macs remain virtually nonexistent, and Apple gets high marks from many security experts for making an operating system that, by default, resists viruses and other malicious attacks." A far cry from "There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X exploits". The money quote is "But as Daines can attest, such safeguards are no guarantee. For reasons he still doesn't understand, the virus that attacked his PowerBook G4 was able to elude OS X's password protection, possibly, he said, because he was already running in administrator mode." It wasn't a virus, to begin with, and he probably blindly entered his password without know why he was doing it... In otherwords, he gave the malware explicit permission to run on his machine. Your second article is about someone who found a way to crash an *application* not the OS, and says the OS is the focus of *researchers*, not "crackers and blackhats". So I'll ask again... can anyone cite anything to back up the contention that There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats into finding OS X exploits"? > Your second article is about someone who found a way to crash an > *application* not the OS, and says the OS is the focus of > *researchers*, not "crackers and blackhats". Dave, dave, dave, who do you think supplies those "researchers" with info? Many times the "researchers" are just fronts for blackhats. And who do you think uses that "research"? It's a symbiotic relationship but since you appear to know nothing about the "security" industry and the relationships between "blackhats" and "researchers" you're going to be way behind when the increasing numbers of script kiddies start using these published exploits along with using zero day exploits of a researcher who doesn't feel like notifying Apple. > So I'll ask again... can anyone cite anything to back up the contention > that There is clearly more and more momentum by crackers and blackhats > into finding OS X exploits"? It's obvious but you're too bullheaded to consider it. Just pay attention to what's going on around you and actually think about the increased numbers of security bulletins the last 2 years. The blackhats feed off of the stuff, and believe me, there's a feeding frenzy. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > The reason for my original posts stems from my rote behavior in using > my Windows machines -spending a couple hours each weekend updating all > the updates for all the protection. Of course. Indeed, even the CEO of Intel has said that "He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer..." A PC running Windows, of course. It's healthy and wise to stay abreast of what's going on in the malware world, but again, at this time, there are no malware issues in the OS X universe that are in the wild, that pose any serious or non-trivial threat to OS X users. However, in my over twenty years of Mac usage, there is one class of software that bears the singular distinction of being the one that can and will undermine your system, ruin your workflow, and/or otherwise be so intrusive and poorly programmed that its use might itself be considered malware, and of course that class of software is of the prophylactic kind, also known generically as AV software. I would ask those promoting the use of AV software on the Mac if they also happen to wear fire suits and Nomex socks, gloves and underwear in their cars? Whether or not they have full roll cages and wear crash helmets while they drive their daily commutes? If the answer is no to this series of questions, the reader is left to ponder whether they have some kind of vested interest in AV software, or just some form of obsessive compulsive disorder. After all, the risk of serious injuy or death is 1,000,000 X greater in a car than any risk imposed by OS X malware Frankly, it matters not what vested interest or neurosis is behind their commentary, it just matters that there is no real reason for AV software on Macs at this time. And the argument that one would use same to be conscientious of their PC using friends or colleagues is a specious one. If one is that aware one is aware enough not to fall prey to some social engineering exploit. [advocacy trimmed] Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid > The reason for my original posts stems from my rote behavior in using > my Windows machines -spending a couple hours each weekend updating all [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > researchers like Ferris. In February a number of malicious programs, > including one called OSX/Leap, were released targeting the Macintosh. Which never plagued my Mac yet. SignatureWhere are we going? And why am I in this handbasket? > Whatever. Keep your head buried in the sand. It's befitting. Ignore > all the new exploits that come out daily, whether they're from > "blackhats", "crackers", from your next door neighbor, or your next door > neighbor's dog. Here's a better idea: look at the exploits. Evaluate them. See if they constitute a real threat. There are many OS X exploits. Almost all of them require the blackhat cracker to sit down in front of the computer, and use the keyboard and mouse attached to it, to exploit. You have, I'm sorry to say, bought into a lie that you were spoon-fed by Microsoft's PR spinners. You have accepted, and you now believe, that the reason there are so many Windows viruses is that Windows is more common than Mac OS, and when evildoers turn their attention to the Mac, there will be Mac viruses. The fact is, there have been some extremely dedicated and diligent hackers trying to exploit Mac OS X since the days of Mac OS X 1.0 Developer Preview 3. There are entire groups, such as Macintosh Underground, working very, very hard to figure out how to write viruses for the Mac. The reason that there are so many Windows viruses and no Mac viruses has nothing to do with popularity. That tired old Microsoft myth has been discredited so many times it's not even funny. The Wizzer worm, for example, is an extremely complex Windows virus that exploits a very subtle flaw in just one version of just one Windows program, a firewall called Black Ice. At the height of this worm's spread, the total number of vulnerable computers in the entire world was smaller than the number of Macs Apple sells in *one month*. So in other words, the installed vulnerable base was tiny tiny tiny, yet an exploit still appeared. If a system is vulnerable, it will be exploited. So far, OS X is not vulnerable. This is a result of the basic architecture and design of OS X, not of popularity, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something. Is a virus impossible? No. Is it going to happen only when OS X becomes more popular? No. Is the current lack of viruses the result of the fact that black hats just aren't paying attention to OS X? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. SignatureArt, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com > > Whatever. Keep your head buried in the sand. It's befitting. Ignore > > all the new exploits that come out daily, whether they're from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cracker to sit down in front of the computer, and use the keyboard and > mouse attached to it, to exploit. You do know that with local exploits affecting the browser or email or downloading files the user never even knows when they've hit a malicious site or previewed a dangerous message? Here's a local exploit that a user could be unaware of running until it's too late (from Tom Ferris' bulletin, http://www.security-protocols.com): "Multiple vulnerabilities exist within Safari 2.0.3 (417.9.2) and all prior versions which causes the application to crash, and or may allow for an attacker to execute arbitrary code.." Emphasis on "to execute arbitrary code". "Vendor Status: Apple was notified of these issues on 01/06/2006. Solution: Currently no patches have been released for these vulnerabilities." April 19, 2006 Greg >>>Whatever. Keep your head buried in the sand. It's befitting. Ignore >>>all the new exploits that come out daily, whether they're from [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Currently no patches have been released for these vulnerabilities." April > 19, 2006 Odd, I haven't run into any malicious sites with Safari. Haven't for two years running. Before that I got nailed when using IE on windows. SignatureWhere are we going? And why am I in this handbasket? > Here's a local exploit that a user could be unaware of running until it's > too late (from Tom Ferris' bulletin, http://www.security-protocols.com): [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Emphasis on "to execute arbitrary code". Perhaps one should at least take note of the "may". SignatureBill Mitchell Dept of Mathematics, The University of Florida PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105 mitchell@math.ufl.edu (352) 392-0281 x284 In article <derekcurrie-494B45.19511824042006@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>, > There is no excuse for not having an anti-virus on your Mac. Clam is a > 100% free, cross platform, frequently updated, anti-virus program. Yes, there is an excuse to not have an antivirus app: All antivirus apps impact system resources. This impact may be greater (Norton Antivirus) or smaller (ClamXAV), but there is no such thing as an antivirus app with zero footprint. Because there are no viruses in circulation, that impact is for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Having the software installed does not protect you from a hypothetical future attack by some hypothetical future virus; AV programs can not defend against unknown threats. So, right here, right now, there is no reason to have an AV program, and there are reasons not to. If the hypothetical future day ever comes when a Mac virus is in circulation, which may happen, then on that day the equation changes. But right now, there is no reason to have an AV program, and there is reason not to. SignatureArt, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com > Yes, there is an excuse to not have an antivirus app: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But right now, there is no reason to have an AV program, and there is > reason not to. I disagree. First, you can run, for example, ClamXav on demand, so it doesn't consume any resources when it's not running. Sure, a few bytes on the disk, but no big deal. And while it needs a user group, Apple, as of 10.4, has Clam's group build in to the OS. That given, it's certainly a valid check to run it on mailboxes or attachments, even if for your own comfort before you send a file on to someone else. In article <derekcurrie-494B45.19511824042006@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>, > > Considering there are no viruses or spyware for OS X, why do you need > > this crap mucking up your system? > > It is comments like that which feed the wintrolls with spew to spray > back at us, calling us callous about security. No way am I putting up > with that accusation! Yea, it's' hilarious what windroids say. It's all just bullshit anyway. The trolls pretend to be all tweaked out about Mac security yet if they can't expect/demand anything better from MS, I'm certainly not going to help them. I will not run AV software to keep from spreading windows viruses. According to them the problem doesn't exist anyway. > 5 'proof-of-concept' pieces of malware exist for Mac OS X, each of which > proves the possibility of real malware for Mac OS X. And, you can bet > that some berzerker/cracker will implement such vulnerabilities into a > viable 'in the wild' piece of malware. If AV software becomes necessary on a Mac I'll get it. I expect Apple to take care of the problem, not third parties, and Apple is doing a fine job so far. I am sure Apple will continue to stay on top of it. > So, Derek sez: BE PREPARED. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cleaner. TCC also gives you about 40 other kewl features you will find > useful. Your just buying into the windroids hype, lowering yourself to a windows expectation of computing...wasting your time, money and system resources. > :-Derek SignatureSD "Such warnings, however, have to contend with the Mac OS X's impressive lack of major security incidents." -That's the bottom line. Derek Currie wrote (in article <derekcurrie-5379EB.13575120042006@syrcnyrdrs-02- ge0.nyroc.rr.com>): > 1) Virex: $40.21 per license (but note that you have to buy 5 licenses > at a time). I have been using Virex for many years. In the days of Mac > OS 7, 8 an 9 it was easily the best due to a nice feature where it > checked if files had been modified since the last time it had run. Its > speed was remarkably fast because it knew when it could skip over files > it had previously checked. Which is (was) a potential security hole, as a virus could reset the time stamps on the file(s). SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw Derek- Thank you for such a terrific response. I appreciate your time in educating a new Mac user. :-) --Deirdre |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.