Which Anti-virus should I get?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by neoserver, Sep 10, 2006.

  1. neoserver macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #1
    I'm getting a mac pro here soon and due to school policy, I need to get Anti-virus for OS X.

    Which one do you guys suggest? Norton? Virex?

    Thanks a lot.
     
  2. levitynyc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    #2
    I may not own a Mac, but even I know there is no need for a Virus Scanner for OS X
     
  3. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #3
    If you buy Norton Virus, you deserve to have your head beaten.

    It is a bigger problem than the viruses it is supposed to protect you from.

    If you buy Norton Disk Destructor, you deserve to be shot.

    Since it will likely destroy your disk. They stopped supporting it long ago, so it will likely fry a Intel-based machine.
     
  4. Josephkyles macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #4
    Hmm, I had the same problem at my school. Only I finally got through to school administrators that my Mac was more secure than any other computer on campus!
     
  5. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #5
    Unfortunately, its not my choice. I'd love to not own one.

    But like I said in my first post, its due to school policy.
     
  6. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #6
    How about ClamXav? http://www.markallan.co.uk/clamXav/

    B
     
  7. dunc85 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    #7
    Will they actually check to see you have one installed?
     
  8. levitynyc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    #8
    Please explain that there are no viruses for OS X.
     
  9. bep207 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #9
    i dont know where you go to school, but on campus here you are made to have a virus scanner, but since they force you to have a virus scanner they also HAVE TO provide it for you.

    call your ITS at school and see which one they are going to give you, and if they refuse to give you one, then you have the right to refuse to purchase one. thats one reason you bought a mac im sure
     
  10. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #10
    Yes they do. They do it when setting up for access to the Res network.

    As to ClamXav, that might be a nice solution. It would probably satisfy their desires to run a clean ship.

    plus its free

    They give out Norton for the Windows PCs. but i'd have to wait for them to order Norton for mac. which I don't want to do.
     
  11. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #12
    The anti-virus software the school wants him to get is to not only protect his machine, but others on the nework. Macs can still spread PC viruses.
     
  12. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #13
    EXACTLY.

    Most of the infrastructure and staff computers are running either Linux or Solaris. Only the computer labs and a few staff machines run windows here.

    However that can't be said for the other student's computers running on the Res network.
     
  13. dunc85 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
  14. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #15
    So what do they run on the unix boxes?

    B
     
  15. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #16
    to be honest i'm not sure.
     
  16. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #17
    You might remind that that OS X is unix under the covers. :p

    B
     
  17. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #18
    Ahhhh.... I see where this is going ;)
     
  18. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #19
    I'd just get ClamXAV. It's going to be more and more the solution over time as the power of the open source developers behinds it grows.

    But... and this is a big butt....

    I don't buy this EXACTLY. Think about it this way:

    On your network are:
    A - Mac with no AV
    B..Z - Windows computers with whatever AV is supposed to be on them.

    Now the Mac can only pass -- a virus cannot get from one file to another (replicate) on the Mac. So the only situation in which risk exists is for an infected file to come to the network via A and then get passed to some other computer F. But F has anti-virus software. If that software detects the virus in the file, it will block it whether it comes from A or the public internet. If it does not, it will not block it, regardless of how it gets in.

    If you contrast that to the situation where A has the same AV that B..Z have, then there is no net risk increase, because either (1) the only additional place the virus can get is the Mac, which is immune to it, or (2) the AV software that can't protect against the virus still fails to prevent it from getting onto the network.

    So I really don't believe that argument makes any sense... it's appealing on the surface, but in its depth it's a fallacy.
     
  19. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #20

    This doesnt really make much sense. Most viruses propagate by first infecting the host computer then sending itself out via address book, etc.

    If the virus cant infect a Mac, there is really no way for a Mac to spread the virus. Unless the Mac user downloads an infected Windows file and shares it with others. Which isnt likely, unless the user is running Windows in parallels or something because there is no reason for a Mac user to have an EXE.
     
  20. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #21
    Thats all nice and dandy, but if a user temporairly disables their AV or forgets to update it. Also, the Norton for windows that they provide includes the firewall.

    or i'm downloading something for a friend.

    I;ll probably just go with ClamXav just to save myself the trouble of getting in an argument with the sysadmins.
     
  21. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #22
    I like big butts and I cannot lie....

    FWIW we run clamav at work on an e-mail gateway and it catches lots of stuff before Norton does. (Though the converse is also true, it doesn't catch everything that Norton sees).

    B
     
  22. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #23
    Pssh... if the user disables AV then they're vulnerable to more than just your Mac. And I have no problem with AV running on the Windows computers. My point is merely that there is no net increase in security by virtue of the Mac having AV.

    EDIT: I also think that as ClamAV gets to be the default on Linux server systems... as it will be in Leopard Server... it's just going to become the defacto standard. In fact Apple probably should just jump the gun and put ClamAV into OS X Workstation / Client / whatever. And you can turn it off and never think about it again, but it would be fabulous for Clam's publicity, cost Apple nothing, and allow for bragging rights and all sorts of snotty commercials. :D
     
  23. neoserver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #24
    I see the point you're making. But the sysadmins here are really picky and would prefer that everything had AV.
     
  24. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #25
    I do totally understand. That's why I started by suggesting Clam. It's free, it's written by open-source programmers, so it's relatively well behaved, unlike commercial solutions. And it's gaining more and more ground.
     

Share This Page