What if my Boot Camp partition allows me to "read and write" as stated by the "get info" window?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is there a strandard anti virus mac users should have?
- Thread starter Alienworkshoper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if my Boot Camp partition allows me to "read and write" as stated by the "get info" window?
OK, so, as plenty of people are piping up with: the market share argument is "BS", I am yet to see a convincing or credible alternative argument to be honest.
There are plenty of people saying it`s because OSX/Unix is so totally impregnable that the black hats are too scared to take it on, BS, one thing these guys love is a challenge.
I can`t imagine that, right now, there is no-one who has the technical ability to create a damaging OSX virus, regardless of it`s unix core.
So, a Mac is harder to infect, harder but far from impossible and yet, NO ONE HAS BOTHERED.
So the ability exists but apparently the desire does not, if it did then there would be OSX viruses.
I can only conclude that the MAIN but not the ONLY reason is that the small number of Mac users combined with the extra effort required to infect OSX means that no-one has felt it worthwhile as yet.
I totally agree that the best form of anti-virus is Basic Common Sense, even in ten years of windows use I have only had 1 infection, which was removed without a problem and I have never used paid-for anti-virus software.
To all the anti Market Share people: If the situation was reversed there would, without doubt, be similar reversal of the number of virus`s.
Or would the black hats ignore a 90% Mac market share because that unix core is so totally impregnable.
If Unix is the "magic bullet" then why has the enterprise market not simply totally abandoned windows for the more secure Unix platform?
For the most part, they haven`t. Let alone switched to the virus free and more secure Mac.
I`ll admit Unix has an increasing place in enterprise, but the Mac? I have no accurate figures to hand but the number of Macs in enterprise/business situations will be miniscule.
So, why go to the extra effort to write a virus that MIGHT annoy a small number of (mostly) personal computer users.
If it was worth doing, someone would have done it.
There are plenty of people saying it`s because OSX/Unix is so totally impregnable that the black hats are too scared to take it on, BS, one thing these guys love is a challenge.
I can`t imagine that, right now, there is no-one who has the technical ability to create a damaging OSX virus, regardless of it`s unix core.
So, a Mac is harder to infect, harder but far from impossible and yet, NO ONE HAS BOTHERED.
So the ability exists but apparently the desire does not, if it did then there would be OSX viruses.
I can only conclude that the MAIN but not the ONLY reason is that the small number of Mac users combined with the extra effort required to infect OSX means that no-one has felt it worthwhile as yet.
I totally agree that the best form of anti-virus is Basic Common Sense, even in ten years of windows use I have only had 1 infection, which was removed without a problem and I have never used paid-for anti-virus software.
To all the anti Market Share people: If the situation was reversed there would, without doubt, be similar reversal of the number of virus`s.
Or would the black hats ignore a 90% Mac market share because that unix core is so totally impregnable.
If Unix is the "magic bullet" then why has the enterprise market not simply totally abandoned windows for the more secure Unix platform?
For the most part, they haven`t. Let alone switched to the virus free and more secure Mac.
I`ll admit Unix has an increasing place in enterprise, but the Mac? I have no accurate figures to hand but the number of Macs in enterprise/business situations will be miniscule.
So, why go to the extra effort to write a virus that MIGHT annoy a small number of (mostly) personal computer users.
If it was worth doing, someone would have done it.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that they all ignore OS X, but do you actually have anything to back it up?
The fact that there are conferences to hack OS X, trojans (the user must actively install), and known vulnerabilities published by people other than Apple, means that OS X is not ignored - there are a sizable number of people actively pursuing breaking down OS X security.
What, like a survey of hackers? No. Sorry.
And yet, not a single one has managed to hack it?
The fact is (and no, I don`t have figures to back this up) that the
number of people actively trying to hack OSX is minisucule compared to the
size of the windows hacking community.
In almost direct relation to the size of their respective user bases (and marketshare), oddly enough.
Increase the user base and the viruses will come.
Anyway, I`m not going to change anyone`s mind, and couldn`t care less if i did.
I have yet to see a convincing or credible argument proving it.
Exactly. A challenge. You have Apple and a load of Apple and Linux fanboys running around screaming that their respective operating systems are invincible. You have Google running ONLY Linux or OS X (Google now longer allow their employees to use Windows because of security issues). You have corporations and governments all over the world running only Unix or Linux on their servers (as I said, Windows Server is not scalable nor does it run on anything other than BS Intel chips, no high end SPARC chips which drill Intels offering into the ground if the software can be coded to take advantage of all the threads they offer). Anyway, I'm going off topic, basically, who would not want to be the first person to successfully develop and deploy a Unix virus?
True, nothing is invincible.
I refer you to this post and my previous post.
I refer you to my previous post again. Windows has 70,000 viruses because of complete and utter incompetence on design. They can't even claim ignorance, because Unix has had features like the user and software not running in admin mode forever. That's not ignorance, that's pure incompetence. Microsoft then drags all this legacy code throughout modern versions of Windows to ensure backwards compatibility. Apple packaged their Mac OS 9 classic environment (Mac OS 9 having hundreds of viruses and half the marketshare of OS X I should add!) into an emulator, which they then scrapped in 2006. So when some security hole that's been present in Windows for 15 years (and I can name several) still exists in Windows 8, you'll know why. Because if they fixed it, it would break something important. Can I say the word again? Incompetence. I like that word. Still, can't blame them forever, they took their whipping with Vista.
Software, ease of use (excluding OS X), and support. If you're Dell breaks, Dell will drive to your office and fix it that day, on site. If your Mac breaks, you send it off in a box, or take it to an Apple store, and get it back some days later. Whilst that's fine for a consumer, that is not acceptable to a company. And as I mentioned, nothing but Unix or Linux runs on any large scale servers. Take a trip down to Apple's new server farm, or Google's many server farms. Find out if they're running Unix or Server 2008 (I'm loling at the thought). Even Microsoft runs Linux. Windows Server 2008 is simply not suitable.
This is not an attack but a real question. My company I work for requires that I run one of about five approved (by our IT department) AV software on my Mac in order to connect to the network. So I use ClamXav. Every couple days it updates the virus definition package.
Code:
ClamAV update process started at Mon Jan 3 13:02:11 2011
main.cld is up to date (version: 53, sigs: 846214, f-level: 53, builder: sven)
Downloading daily-12468.cdiff [100%]
Downloading daily-12469.cdiff [100%]
Downloading daily-12470.cdiff [100%]
Downloading daily-12471.cdiff [100%]
Downloading daily-12472.cdiff [100%]
daily.cld updated (version: 12472, sigs: 13615, f-level: 58, builder: ccordes)
bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 114, sigs: 27, f-level: 58, builder: edwin)
Database updated (859856 signatures) from database.clamav.net (IP: 195.222.33.229)
Clamd successfully notified about the update.If what you are saying is true, then what is it downloading? I'm not being a smart ass, I just really want to know.
On the flip side ClamXav has never caused me any problems, so I don't care that I run it since it does not affect my MBP. I could not run it and probably get away with it, but I'd also lose my job if the IT guys checked (which they do random checks of people's PC's, part of the contract) so not worth it to me.
Thanks,
Matt
ClamXav only looks for Windows viruses, so that what the updated definitions file has.
Look at the number of people that find vulnerabilities compared to the number of people that enter PWN2OWN. Not many people out there are actually able to create 0day exploits. Most people making exploits rely on the work and tools developed by those creating 0days. Mac OS X has its fair share of hackers at the highest level.
The real question is "Why make viruses and worms for the harder target?" For example, do a comparison of the number of exploits for apache versus the windows alternative. Given that privilege escalation is much more difficult in OS X and Linux, why spend the effort on the harder target? An increase in market share will only increase the prevalence of easily avoided trojans given that the conditions to achieve privilege escalation are much more difficult. Most malware for windows are trojans but the ones that cause the most damage are worms, such as Zeus and Conficker, that require privilege escalation to install.
ClamXav contains defenitions for all four trojans that currently affect Mac OS X. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11415441/
Last edited:
Fair enough, but the updates are still the virus definitions that affect Windows (since those 4 haven't changed in a while (compared to the daily updates for Windows)).
No sydenham, not in the slightest.
I stand by everything I have said and could not care less wether you agree or not.
Consider yourself ignored.
Yeah, ok.
Makes sense right? Mac OS as a platform has never been targeted due to it's marketshare.
Oh wait a minute.....
.....
...it has! 1988 - Scores ; Market Share is around 6%
1987 - 1991 - nVIR ; Market Share around 4% - 7%
1994 - Virus.MacOS.Init29 ; Market Share around 11%.
Fast forward to the present and we have a bunch of trojans and other user installed goodies. The marketshare of 2001 -> is only 1-2% lower than the early years when Mac OS had not only low marketshare but low overall numbers as well, and threats for Mac OS continued even after the PC market was experiencing substantial growth.
So the number of worms in the wild slowed down substantially because....they lost 1-2% (but the number of macs overall increased)?
Ok.
The fact is....your claim is unsubstantiated and based on how you think it works, but refuse to provide evidence.
I'd love for you and others to use actual numbers and research to assert your claim rather than spew BS and make silly assumptions . The world would be become a better place.