Is there a strandard anti virus mac users should have?

[Fubar1977]

Versus being one of a gazillion on Windows and being lost in the shuffle

I'm not buying the argument. What does a hacker gain by writing a virus? Data? Not unless it was written for a specific purpose. Satisfaction of bringing down a company that they have probably never heard of? Hmmm, not really. Notoriety in the hacker community? I find this more likely. Hackers get ZERO return on their virus other than the thrill.

Would I rather be one of many to write a virus that affects Windows and people go ho hum... another virus, run your updates.

Or would I rather hit the news world by being the ONLY one to bring the arrogant, uppity Mac world down by being the first and ONLY one to crack what the snooty Mac users claim is invincible?

Quick, name the last 5 major Windows viruses and the affect they had on the Corporate world without Googling for results.

Now, imagine a virus that devastated the Mac community because there was no AV on any machines and it replicated like wildfire before anyone could write a solution. People would remember that.

The market-share argument isn't totally irrelevant, but it is not the primary reason for no viruses on the Mac. That is due to the Unix base and the stability of the OS. Is it perfect? No. Does it have vulnerabilities? Yes. Have they been exploited? No.

If all this was true then WHY has NO-ONE bothered to write a Mac virus?
Devastating the Mac community would only have an effect on the Mac community a devastating windows virus can do a lot more harm purely because it has more chance to affect vital systems. You will NOT see a Mac being used in such mission-critical ways.

If someone were so inclined I`m quite sure they could write a virus that would install invisibly even on Unix/OSX, the fact is that apparently no-one has so far felt inclined to do it.

Market-share is not the only reason but I`m damn sure its the main reason, that and the potential to cause chaos, if a few Macs crash then the world simply won`t notice.
Hell, at this point, if the Mac ceased to exist tomorrow the only people who would really notice are Mac users.
The sad fact is that if Windows ceased to exist tomorrow, the modern world would quickly stop functioning.

 

[OllyW]

Hell, at this point, if the Mac ceased to exist tomorrow the only people who would really notice are Mac users.

Yet Apple has an even smaller share of the mobile phone market and a minor alarm clock bug makes front page news?

A real Mac virus would be a huge news story.

 

[NickZac]

What makes front page headlines has no strong correlation with what is actually important (which is objective) or has the most impact on the world. News is very selective in what they cover.

Again, the market-share argument is BS ...

It's not all about infecting the most computers. It's about the results. If someone could write a virus that will spread from UNIX box to UNIX box, they would own OS X (fully UNIX certified) as well as the vast majority of web servers (running Apache - on a UNIX-compliant base). So why haven't they?

Yes, it is about results and because of this, the market share argument does apply, mind you, in a slightly different fashion than most people use it as. You cannot cause major results if you are attempting to break/damage/fix something that has no application to the majority of people (ex: a bomb goes off in the middle of the Sahara desert versus the same bomb going off in NYC will have majorly different results).

If you want to cause detrimental results, you need to impact the overall Internet and computer basis infrastructure. Because all Mac OS's combined are such a small amount of the market share (about 6.3% as of 10/2010), attacking Macs would have little to no impact on most users at the individual level. NOW, how many servers use OS X or Unix based systems? I do not know, but if it is high, then yes, then there is potential for detrimental results and the market share argument is indeed void. However, if most servers use something other than Unix, then an OS X virus would once again have lesser impact as it would shut down less of the infrastructure.

Also, if the servers using Unix are more prevalent in the critical market (ex: emergency telecommunication, military control, weather warning systems, major financial systems, etc.), then yes, a virus would make a huge disruption.

 

[Hellhammer]

I don't think destroying computers is hackers' number one target. I would say their most important target is to get money. You don't gain money by bricking random people's computers, don't you? By making things like keyloggers they can actually make money (steal credit card numbers, bank account info, stuff like that).

At least if I was a hacker, I wouldn't bother with breaking computers. I would rather make something that will fill my fridge.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

market share
lawl. Ok.

An OS X Trojan got as much media attention as Conficker for crying out loud. All the anti-apple people cheered when those smug OS X users finally had something to worry about, and most didn't even realize it was a boring Trojan that any script kiddy could write. If I have to install it myself, it's boring.

Anyway, enough of this marketshare nonsense. Obviously there is something more to it. OS X may have 3%-10% of the market, depending on whose BS numbers you believe that day.

ok.

You're telling me that black hats all across the world are forgoing 3% - 10% of the market, which, i'm told, comprises of the world's most unsecure platform? If OS X is fulla' holes (which i'm sure it is), and it's users are simply wafting in the wind running without any anti-virus software and oft time commensense, why not exploit. More importantly, why waste your time with a platform such as NT which has several, actually, 24 officially endorsed antivirus vendors (not including their OWN security offerings), a relatively quick patching time, and various safeguards built into the OS.

'Just Because' is not an answer. Not a decent one anyway. Why go for the fort with machine guns, anti air missiles and spotlights when OS X is in the corner wearing a bikini (as in, insecure, again as i'm told)?

Perhaps it has to do less with marketshare and more with the teeny tiny fundamental differences that exist between NT and *NIX in terms of security practices. Yes, some people do it a lil' differently than redmond.

 

[sydenham]

Again, the market-share argument is BS ...

It's not all about infecting the most computers. It's about the results. If someone could write a virus that will spread from UNIX box to UNIX box, they would own OS X (fully UNIX certified) as well as the vast majority of web servers (running Apache - on a UNIX-compliant base). So why haven't they?

Excellent point. I am getting sick of people using the stupid argument that no one bothers to write a virus for OSX because not enough people use it. Someone would get very very famous bringing OSX down. Saying that OSX is more vulnerable than Windows is just stupid at best. Be careful what you try to pass off as fact Nick, you don't seem to really know what you are talking about when it comes to Unix , so might be best to back off of this one.

 

[Apple OC]

Is there a strandard anti virus mac users should have?

No there is no standard ... anything that detects Windows Viruses and Malware on a Mac is as close to Standard as you will get.

 

[GGJstudios]

Regardless of how vulnerable to malware you think or don't think macs are...

is there a must have or a best anti virus for macs?

Yes. The must-have anti-malware for Mac OS X is User Common Sense. It's installed between the ears of the user and comes in handy for knowing when to get out of the rain, knowing not to play in traffic, and knowing how not to actively download and install trojans. There is no antivirus software that can protect your Mac from viruses, since none exist that run on current Mac OS X. Until a virus is written and released into the wild, AV apps don't know what to look for.

Mac Virus/Malware Info

Not at present but as the Mac gains popularity it may well become a necessity in the future.

Then how do you account for the fact that Mac OS X has increased to a larger market share than ever before, while the number of Mac viruses has decreased.... to zero?

So there would be a point if it would affect more than 10%? I never get this.

You don't get it because it doesn't make sense.

The market-share argument is a myth at best.

Exactly.

The best AV for OSX is to avoid illegal downloads, know what you are installing from legitimate sources and common sense

Exactly.

There is no correct answer to this question and the concept that 'Apple's OS cannot get viruses' is a bunch of BS.

There is a correct answer, like MacDawg's. No one is saying Mac OS X can't get viruses..... but for that to happen, one needs to be written and released into the wild, where a Mac user can find it.

Not defensive, just trying to stop the spread of FUD.

... and there always seems to be a lot of FUD in these malware threads.

Again, the market-share argument is BS ...

Yes, it's complete B.S.

 

[Hastings101]

No there isn't. All of the ones now are more dangerous than a virus itself would be. Besides, at the moment anyway, there are no real viruses on the Macintosh platform. Give it a few more years and you might need one.

 

[Claerion]

http://www.sophos.com/products/enterprise/endpoint/security-and-control/mac/

scans for non mac viruses so while you may not have the virus that is hidden in an email you got that you decide to forward to a friend (windows user) they don't get it either.

 

[ssdeg7]

There is no "must have" anti-virus for the ZERO viruses in the wild for 10.5 and 10.6.

That's not true, do more research, even though I love my Mac there's a small amount of Mac OS X viruses out there, and as Apple gains more popularity more will come. In fact OS X is more vulnerable than Windows and Linux.

 

[GGJstudios]

Simply put... No. There is no "must have" anti-virus for the ZERO viruses in the wild for 10.5 and 10.6.

That's not true, do more research

It is true. You're the one who needs to do some research: Mac Virus/Malware Info

there's a small amount of Mac OS X viruses out there,

Name one. You can't, because there ARE none. Don't post misinformation on this forum. You have no facts to substantiate your claim.

as Apple gains more popularity more will come.

Again, you have no facts. Read my previous post.

In fact OS X is more vulnerable than Windows and Linux.

What factual source do you have for such a statement? Post it.

 

[ssdeg7]

Because I have not seen a Mac infected by malware. I don't care if someone says OS X is more vulnerable because in my real world experience it is not. I don't have to worry about this "vulnerabilities" in my everyday life when using OS X, yet I have to when I'm on Windows.

Until someone starts to take advantage of these "vulnerabilities", there is no real threat.

Although it does bother me that my Mac is vulnerable I agree with most of what you say. We'll have to wait to see what's coming in the next years for Mac users.

 

[NickZac]

Excellent point. I am getting sick of people using the stupid argument that no one bothers to write a virus for OSX because not enough people use it. Someone would get very very famous bringing OSX down. Saying that OSX is more vulnerable than Windows is just stupid at best. Be careful what you try to pass off as fact Nick, you don't seem to really know what you are talking about when it comes to Unix , so might be best to back off of this one.

What almost everyone has said here leads to a logical argument of why OS X is not hit hard with viruses.


As for the vulnerability issues of Win7 and OS X, I am done with that as discussing it wont make any difference to anyone as opinions are set

 

[toxic]

I don't buy the marketshare argument, either. the only marketshare argument that makes remote sense is argument that Macs are hardly used in enterprise or government, which is where the money is...but the notoriety of defeating and compromising OSX alone would be enough reason to go for it, if I were a malware writer or hacker. presumably it'd lead to compromising other Unix-based OS's, too.

no, there isn't any AV software you should have. however, Macs can still carry Windows malware, so if you interact with Windows computers on any regular basis, I think you should still have something...just don't waste your money and pay for one. I use Sophos since I have a free license, but there's a free Home version, and ClamXAV.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

That's not true, do more research, even though I love my Mac there's a small amount of Mac OS X viruses out there, and as Apple gains more popularity more will come. In fact OS X is more vulnerable than Windows and Linux.

Cool. Can I get a link to one of the viruses? I'd like to see the payload.

TIA.

 

[r.j.s]

As for the vulnerability issues of Win7 and OS X, I am done with that as discussing it wont make any difference to anyone as opinions are set

My opinions are not "set." I will believe it when proof appears that shows that the current version of Windows 7 is less vulnerable than the current version of Snow Leopard.

A handful of articles on OS X vulnerabilities does not proof make.

 

[NickZac]

My opinions are not "set." I will believe it when proof appears that shows that the current version of Windows 7 is less vulnerable than the current version of Snow Leopard.

A handful of articles on OS X vulnerabilities does not proof make.

Ok then, I will retract my first statement and we can say that both OSs have vulnerabilities.


And yes, the market share percentage plays at least some roll in the lack of viruses.

 

[GGJstudios]

And yes, the market share percentage plays at least some roll in the lack of viruses.

Following the market share argument, if Macs have 5% market share, it would stand to reason they would have somewhere around 5% of the viruses and other malware. If their market share increases to 10%, their share of the viruses should increase to around 10%. However, the opposite is true. As Macs' market share has grown significantly over the past 10 years, the number of viruses that run on it have disappeared completely, so that none remain that run on current Mac OS X.

The market share argument is completely erroneous.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

And yes, the market share percentage plays at least some roll in the lack of viruses.

At what point do black hats get off their hands and say " oh.my.god. Apple totally snuck up on us. We need to get those guys!" ?

10%?
20%?
30%?
40%?

Just need to know when I can expect 'it' to hit the fan.

 

[sydenham]

Following the market share argument, if Macs have 5% market share, it would stand to reason they would have somewhere around 5% of the viruses and other malware. If their market share increases to 10%, their share of the viruses should increase to around 10%. However, the opposite is true. As Macs' market share has grown significantly over the past 10 years, the number of viruses that run on it have disappeared completely, so that none remain that run on current Mac OS X.

The market share argument is completely erroneous.

Thank you for putting this in a way that is clear and to the point. It is pretty clear that Nick has spent too much time in the Windows world, and likes to pass misinformation he has learned as fact. Its always the same. Ask someone to show you a virus for the Mac and they start making things up about vulnerabilities with no substantial proof... And suggesting that OSX or just about any other Unix variant is less secure than Windows is laughable.

 

[INEEDANOTEBOOK]

I would dare say that the education and competence level of OS X users is on average, higher than PC users. If you want to know why, I can explain but it will take up some room.

Sources?

 

[NickZac]

The Market Share
People have said on this forum that hackers are trying for money, to disrupt an infrastructure, or to make a name.

Infrastructure
Unless more servers and component critical industries are running OS X then I have read, then the reason to dedicating resources to infecting OS X has little meaning in terms of infrastructure impact. If OS X individuals are the only ones with an infected computer, the impact would be virtually nothing as 95% of people would not be affected.

Money
If you want money, you want to pull victims from the largest pool of people. Windows XP sits at about 55% of all operating systems which screams 'hack me!' as you will have more options. It also has the potential to slightly mitigate the risks of getting caught.

Practicality
Remember the 'I Love You' virus? That scenario could never happen on OS X. Also, most people using OS X seem to have a better understanding of computers than the average user. I dare say 95% of people here know what to do to avoid the chance of a virus.


Market Shares
http://ilari.scheinin.fidisk.fi/market-shares/
Apple OS X is about 5%

Thank you for putting this in a way that is clear and to the point. It is pretty clear that Nick has spent too much time in the Windows world, and likes to pass misinformation he has learned as fact. Its always the same. Ask someone to show you a virus for the Mac and they start making things up about vulnerabilities with no substantial proof... And suggesting that OSX or just about any other Unix variant is less secure than Windows is laughable.

Ok.
1) You nor anyone else showed a single article discussing that OS X is 'better' than Windows7
2) Remember the earlier OS X versions?
3) If you read my earlier posts, I have said multiple times that the odds of a virus are almost none for now and the future.
4) Have you seen all of the security updates for OS X?

Sources?

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-943519.html
A little old, but this has been replicated.

 

[George Knighton]

Again, the market-share argument is BS ...

It's not all about infecting the most computers. It's about the results. If someone could write a virus that will spread from UNIX box to UNIX box, they would own OS X (fully UNIX certified) as well as the vast majority of web servers (running Apache - on a UNIX-compliant base). So why haven't they?

You already know the answer to that: It's just harder to do. There's a level of mandatory access control that makes breaking any Unix/Linux-based system much, much more difficult. And that is just the most obvious difference.

Come visit the US State Department, or that big glass building on the Thames, and see what operating systems they/we are using.



Apple is really going places these days. I am not sure how much longer Apple users will form a small, eclectic percentage of the computer user base who are all too savvy to fall for the typical hacker tricks.

One day we'll be in a panic and rushing to get security protections. One day, evil doers will want to tackle the extra protections of Unix/Linux.

One day. The day's just not quite here yet.

 

[tekmoe]

Not at present but as the Mac gains popularity it may well become a necessity in the future.

Can't tell you how many times I've heard this one over the years...