Anti Virus Software?

[GGJstudios]

So, you didn't misinform the poster ...
... you misinformed the poster.

Because I don't give a complete class on Mac security every time someone asks a question does not constitute misinformation.

misinform |ˌmisinˈfôrm|
verb [ trans. ] (often be misinformed)
give (someone) false or inaccurate information.

I didn't give any false or inaccurate information. Also, it is not necessary to go off-topic and discuss all aspects of security/malware/networks when responding to a question that doesn't require it. Also, there is no requirement to answer every part of a post. If someone asks 10 questions in a post, a valid response doesn't have to address all of them. I answered the pertinent part of that poster's question. They were falsely attributing their issue to network security, when, in fact, it had nothing to do with security at all.

 

[John T]

This is an interesting question and it's a perfect example of exactly what I'm trying to point out; Mac users are simply too uneducated. Maybe today it is unlikely to get infected but tomorrow is a new day and the fact that Mac users seem to be so ignorant as displayed by Mr. GG~ is quite frankly really scary.

WOW! I was unaware that we were in the presence of one of such esteem and education!

 

[Tanax]

WOW! I was unaware that we were in the presence of one of such esteem and education!

No need for sarcasm.
I'm just pointing out that Mac users are very vulnerable if hackers decide to actually do an honest attempt at creating more serious malware/viruses/trojans or whatever you want to call it.

It's like building a really safe car that has tons of airbags and stuff. Therefore you won't need a seatbelt, right? It's so safe anyways. If you crash it'll just expand a tons of airbags. One day it won't be enough and even though a seatbelt might not be completely safe in all scenarios either, it's definitely a lot safer than without seatbelt.

 

[munkery]

I use an unsecured network in the building. This is also worrying me. Can other people see what I am doing?

Extremely unlikely, unless you've expressly given them access to your system. If you don't know how to do this, then you probably haven't.

Your reply to the poster is incorrect.

Sniffing networks is a common technique used by hackers. This doesn't require the user giving any access to the target system.

I didn't misinform the poster. What I stated was completely accurate.

I elected not to derail that thread with an off-topic discussion about network security that had nothing to do with that poster's issue.

So, you didn't misinform the poster but you also consciously decided to not give the poster beneficial network security advice?

Essentially, by not proactively responding to the poster about a relevant network security issue, you misinformed the poster.

Those two statements placed adjacent to each other as provided in your reply negate your argument that you didn't misinform the poster.

 

[vert18]

ClamXav is a safer choice, if you choose to run any 3rd party antivirus.

Mac Virus/Malware Info

LOL, pointing out other anti virus programs problems as to point out a possible flaw in Sophos?

btw, ClamXav is garbage.. ugly bloatware, annoying and any other degrading word you want to tack onto it

 

[munkery]

LOL, pointing out other anti virus programs problems as to point out a possible flaw in Sophos?

btw, ClamXav is garbage.. ugly bloatware, annoying and any other degrading word you want to tack onto it

ClamXav is a better solution because it does not run with elevated privileges.

Client-side software that runs with elevated privileges is less secure because it provides a higher level of access if exploited.

Also, Sophos has been shown to have many issues in a recent security audit.

http://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/Sophail.pdf

The researcher that authored that article is part of team behind the security of Google Chrome.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

No need for sarcasm.
I'm just pointing out that Mac users are very vulnerable if hackers decide to actually do an honest attempt at creating more serious malware/viruses/trojans or whatever you want to call it.

It's like building a really safe car that has tons of airbags and stuff. Therefore you won't need a seatbelt, right? It's so safe anyways. If you crash it'll just expand a tons of airbags. One day it won't be enough and even though a seatbelt might not be completely safe in all scenarios either, it's definitely a lot safer than without seatbelt.

I think I'm following you but I have a question. I think you're saying that IF a hacker decides to create a virus that can attack macs, we are all screwed since none of us have antivirus software. But wouldn't we need to know what kind of virus the person is creating in order to have the proper antivirus software to guard against an attack? And we couldn't know that until one is made so we can never really have an antivirus program that guards against this future attack.... Or does it not work like that?

 

[munkery]

I think I'm following you but I have a question. I think you're saying that IF a hacker decides to create a virus that can attack macs, we are all screwed since none of us have antivirus software. But wouldn't we need to know what kind of virus the person is creating in order to have the proper antivirus software to guard against an attack? And we couldn't know that until one is made so we can never really have an antivirus program that guards against this future attack.... Or does it not work like that?

AV software does have limited efficacy against newly developed threats until a signature is developed for the exploits involved.

Some types of malware, such as those based on browser exploits, are not easily mitigated by AV software even if the threat is known. These threats are mitigated via a patch from the OS vendor.

But, those that develop new malware and/or malware that relies on zero-day exploits are a minority of the online criminals.

Most online criminals use pre-packaged exploit development tools and already known malware. The success of this type of malware relies on diverse distribution methods that focus on maximizing the number of users exposed to achieve a profitable number of infections.

AV software does have good efficacy at mitigating these more common less sophisticated attacks.

As an example that less sophisticated attacks use known malware, the rootkit (Phalanx2) installed at Kernel.org after it was breached has been known as a threat since 2008.

 

[Tanax]

I think I'm following you but I have a question. I think you're saying that IF a hacker decides to create a virus that can attack macs, we are all screwed since none of us have antivirus software. But wouldn't we need to know what kind of virus the person is creating in order to have the proper antivirus software to guard against an attack? And we couldn't know that until one is made so we can never really have an antivirus program that guards against this future attack.... Or does it not work like that?

Of course!
You are entirely correct. AV softwares is not going to protect us from new viruses that work around the AV softwares.

The good thing though is that by having an AV it is(of course) more likely for the AV to pick up something fishy about a file(even if it doesn't notice it as a virus because it's a new virus) PLUS.. and this is the most important thing; the AV softwares are usually quite fast in getting out an update that covers the new virus so even if there's say a period of a month where you're vulnerable to the new virus, the AV software will by then have an update and you're quite safe against it.

Another good thing is that some AV softwares also has like "news" where they post about new viruses and alerts its users - even if they haven't come out with an update for it yet.

So all in all, I really don't see ANY reason NOT to have an AV, even if you're on a Mac That is all I'm trying to point out.

 

[sjinsjca]

We were just given a year old Mac and wanted to know if we need an anti virus?

No.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Thanks guys for the info.