ClamXav went Commercial

[Artimus12]

...
If you have a Mac, keep your browser updated, and aren't a fool...

...and there we have it yet again.

The Mac "Anti anti-virus" brigade always seem to insinuate someone must be thick to need AV. I really can't find the incentive to debate it non stop with those that won't admit it's a good idea to have layered security, and there's no reason to rely on wits alone.

Keep on calling people Fools, Genius. they'll listen to you then ...Not.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I do wonder what drove the decision to make ClamXav a commercial product. I never used it in either its pre-commercial or post-commercial forms, though.

 

[alexgowers]

sure charge for it but you aren't going to get anything on OS X, it's like iOS, the most annoying things that will happen are popups. Sorry but if you want to buy software like this go ahead and feel safer but i personally feel like it just slows down and makes you feel paranoid when really you don't have to even concern yourself and if you do think you have something well thats what the apple store is for?

 

[fran010180]

Hi there
actually none has answered my question. What to do when you are forced to use macs whose OS is no more supported: do they still receive (as someone told me) hidden security patches when something potentially nasty is found by Apple? It is more than rare but ...

In my 20yy of having a mac I never had a problem with malware but still I don't want to act as a "stealth transmitter" when sharing files I have received with people using a PC.

That's why I have asked if clamxav was still working (if I keep using the free version and update the list ...)
Kinda strange isn't it? They force you to use the payed version and the free one works fine.
BTW. If the difference btwn the old and new version is the updated engine, which is the real effect in the detection efficacy... in plain words

Cannot find 2.7.5 and I am not that sure that it works in 32bit macs even if they are ok for 10.6.8

thanks

 

[MacTech68]

Hi there
actually none has answered my question. What to do when you are forced to use macs whose OS is no more supported: do they still receive (as someone told me) hidden security patches when something potentially nasty is found by Apple? It is more than rare but ...

No Apple does not. 10.6.8 last security update was in late 2013.

In my 20yy of having a mac I never had a problem with malware but still I don't want to act as a "stealth transmitter" when sharing files I have received with people using a PC.

Being a 'good citizen' is one reason for running AV.

That's why I have asked if clamxav was still working (if I keep using the free version and update the list ...)
Kinda strange isn't it? They force you to use the payed version and the free one works fine.
BTW. If the difference btwn the old and new version is the updated engine, which is the real effect in the detection efficacy... in plain words

Cannot find 2.7.5 and I am not that sure that it works in 32bit macs even if they are ok for 10.6.8

Until the auto definition update breaks (you'll get a warning if it does) it should still work. Just don't update the Application itself beyond v2.7.5

Here is a link to archive.org's cache of v2.7.5:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150319180058/http://clamxav.com/downloads/ClamXav_2.7.5.dmg

It seems to run in 32bit mode on my Core2Duo under 10.6.8.

 

[fran010180]

https://web.archive.org/web/20150319180058/http://clamxav.com/downloads/ClamXav_2.7.5.dmg

It seems to run in 32bit mode on my Core2Duo under 10.6.8.

thanks
it seems ok.

Btw, Apple has released last year a security patch also for 10.6
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202458

 

[IHelpId10t5]

The Mac "Anti anti-virus" brigade always seem to insinuate someone must be thick to need AV. I really can't find the incentive to debate it non stop with those that won't admit it's a good idea to have layered security, and there's no reason to rely on wits alone.

I know security, and understand layered security very well. However, I'll continue to argue that there are plenty of well engineered security layers already in place in Mac OS. And, that installing 3rd party AV is actually adding potential vulnerabilities that would not have been there out of the box!

 

[ardent73]

I know security, and understand layered security very well. However, I'll continue to argue that there are plenty of well engineered security layers already in place in Mac OS. And, that installing 3rd party AV is actually adding potential vulnerabilities that would not have been there out of the box!

But adding potential vulnerabilities is a true risk of any 3rd party software, not just AV.

 

[MacTech68]

thanks
it seems ok.

Btw, Apple has released last year a security patch also for 10.6
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202458

That particular update is only a definition update for Apple's XProtect, which was enabled on 10.6 back in May 2012. The original update from 2012 included a malware removal tool and automated Xprotect definition updates. However, that only protects you from trojans downloaded via Apple's own apps and apps that use the XProtect mechanism, and using the last Safari version for 10.6.8 (v5.1.10) is pretty impossible these days. It won't protect from viruses - which don't yet exist for Mac in the wild - nor does it detect Microsoft Word and Excel macro viruses, rootkits, worms or files containing Windows malware.

They re-released a Java update which removed Java web-plugin, checks that flash is up to date, but still contains the older version of Java.

Not what I'd call keeping 10.6.8 updated.

I also note that Apple's security update page gives an erronious impression that many of the latest security updates are available for 10.6.8 - but that means updating to the (albeit free) MacOS 10.11. I'm not saying that's what you're basing your claim on, but in checking, I came across it and I find it misleading, since some computers still running 10.6.8 CANNOT update to 10.11.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222

 

[smirking]

I'm one of the minority that paid for the upgrade and I have no complaints about the price. It's been rather useful for me over the years. Nope, I never caught a Mac virus using it, but I work on servers and come into contact with all sorts of files and many of which belong to other people. ClamXav catches stuff that are hiding in files that I'm moving around or work on from third party sources.

I have ClamAV based malware scanners on my servers too, but there have been a few times that ClamXaV found some script malware that my server scanner missed. I'm not sure why that would be since I've always assume that they're using the same vulnerability database. Regardless, ClamXaV is easy to use and allows me to verify that a data set is clean. So YES, I find viruses all the time even if they're not Mac viruses and for me it's very useful for me to catch and remove them any way possible.

I also sometimes have to plug in PC drives or other people's Mac system drives into my Mac. I'd rather be safe than sorry given these circumstances. $25 is nothing compared to time I would lose cleaning out malware off of a PC that got it from my Mac or the embarassment I would face if I somehow ended up transferring a virus to a client's system.

I don't know if it was a smart purchase for me or not in terms of value, but it's a no brainer in terms of time. If you have any need at all for something like this, it's just not worth the time to evaluate if you're willing to pay a $5, $10, or $25 premium over what you consider to be the fair price. But if he charged me this every year, I'd start to think about it.

 

[fran010180]

That particular update is only a definition update for Apple's XProtect,....

I also note that Apple's security update page gives an erronious impression that many of the latest security updates are available for 10.6.8 - but that means updating to the (albeit free) MacOS 10.11. I'm not saying that's what you're basing your claim on, but in checking, I came across it and I find it misleading, since some computers still running 10.6.8 CANNOT update to 10.11.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222

thanks for your important input.
Much appreciated

 

[Maximara]

First of all there are cases when you can not close the tab when the browser is redirected/hijacked, even if you have uBlock or uBlock Origin for that matter installed. So, this problem is not that simple.

Many of these are JavaScript based and NOT a virus, Trojan horse, or browser hijack.

The only way out of these is to force quit the browser in question and load up a blank page.

Preventing this involves having NoScript installed on Firefox or ScriptBlock on Chrome, or JS Blocker on Safari.

I should note that on older Windows systems it was possible for script like this to change the DNS servers used. This is far harder to do on the Mac and involves tricking the Mac user into doing some really crazy things.

 

[jmpnop]

I use to have ClamXAV but now use Avast Antivirus Free, this article notes that ClamXAV has poor detection rate -

https://www.av-test.org/en/news/new...-attack-10-security-packages-put-to-the-test/

I have never detected any malware with any antivirus apps on Mac and in that regard I'd agree with others over the unnecessity of antivirus but I don't get why ClamXAV was so popular. The only pros of it are it was open source, and Avast, Avira and other free solutions are bound to have some data mining, privacy stuff going on although I doubt this was the reason at all.

 

[maflynn]

I use to have ClamXAV but now use Avast Antivirus Free, this article notes that ClamXAV has poor detection rate -

https://www.av-test.org/en/news/new...-attack-10-security-packages-put-to-the-test/

I never heard of this site, so I'm usually wary about trusting a site regarding antivirus when I'm unfamiliar. I'd like to see how the now non-free version stacks up to the others.

I have never detected any malware with any antivirus apps on Mac and in that regard

I believe because apps like Avast add a lot of bloat and issues with your computer, i.e., they can slow things down without really helping you.