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.
Onyx, adware medic, ClamXAV
- Thread starter cnemitz22
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i've used onyx monthly since forever, never had any issues. and run clamXav periodically, altho don't think i've found anything questionable. adwaremedic (now known as 'anti-malware for mac') is something to run only when needed...but i've seen it work (with someone else).
i doubt life would be much different without onyx, but makes me feel good to run it. but most of these things aren't essential until they're essential... just my thoughts...
i doubt life would be much different without onyx, but makes me feel good to run it. but most of these things aren't essential until they're essential... just my thoughts...
OMG. OnyX has absolutely positively nothing at all to do with malware or the identification or removal of malware. OnyX is merely wraps a GUI around standard Unix tasks plus a few OS X-specific utilities. Almost everything done by OnyX is done automatically by OS X.
A word about AdwareMedic/MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac. Having downloaded the Spigot adware engine from c|net's Download.com, I was very happy to find AdwareMedic. [It is important to understand that this is not an accident. c|net is deliberately distributing Spigot via its software distribution system that replaced TechTracker.]
AdwareMedic identified the offending Spigot files, allowing me to remove them. After MalwareBytes took over AdwareMedic and changed its name, I downloaded MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac. I have been reluctant to publicize what happened next, but I will do so now. After installing MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac, I noticed that ZipCloud had been installed on my computer. ZipCloud seems to be a legitimate utility. It has a website. However, I did not knowingly download it nor did I knowingly install it. I moved ZipCloud to the Trash. After emptying the Trash, ZipCloud seems to be gone.
I do not want to falsely accuse anyone of anything. I will admit that I did not take kindly to MalwareBytes's fanning the flames of malware hysteria after it entered the Mac market. This was particularly irksome because MalwareBytes is anti-adware and not a general anti-malware utility. As unsavory as I found its behavior, I did not want to accuse MalawareBytes of doing something that I was not certain that it did.
Over the weekend, I made a discovery that has substantially lowered my opinion of MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac and AdwareMedic before it. Although this utility showed me that Spigot has been installed, it left me a nasty surprise. It did not identify the Spigot engine. This is the executable that does the work defined by its support files.
Not identifying the Spigot engine is a rather egregious omission. There is no excuse for it.
A word about AdwareMedic/MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac. Having downloaded the Spigot adware engine from c|net's Download.com, I was very happy to find AdwareMedic. [It is important to understand that this is not an accident. c|net is deliberately distributing Spigot via its software distribution system that replaced TechTracker.]
AdwareMedic identified the offending Spigot files, allowing me to remove them. After MalwareBytes took over AdwareMedic and changed its name, I downloaded MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac. I have been reluctant to publicize what happened next, but I will do so now. After installing MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac, I noticed that ZipCloud had been installed on my computer. ZipCloud seems to be a legitimate utility. It has a website. However, I did not knowingly download it nor did I knowingly install it. I moved ZipCloud to the Trash. After emptying the Trash, ZipCloud seems to be gone.
I do not want to falsely accuse anyone of anything. I will admit that I did not take kindly to MalwareBytes's fanning the flames of malware hysteria after it entered the Mac market. This was particularly irksome because MalwareBytes is anti-adware and not a general anti-malware utility. As unsavory as I found its behavior, I did not want to accuse MalawareBytes of doing something that I was not certain that it did.
Over the weekend, I made a discovery that has substantially lowered my opinion of MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac and AdwareMedic before it. Although this utility showed me that Spigot has been installed, it left me a nasty surprise. It did not identify the Spigot engine. This is the executable that does the work defined by its support files.
Not identifying the Spigot engine is a rather egregious omission. There is no excuse for it.
Last edited:
Depending on where you got the download for your installer, that might explain the unwanted additional ZipCloud app. It might not be the fault of Malwarebytes. I would suspect that is the case. They have a lot to lose if they were to deliberately do something like that themselves. It really doesn't make sense that they would to me.
As for failing to pick something up in a latest version, that seems like something worth contacting them about rather than dismissing them as being no good over it. Something might have changed and they haven't caught up with it yet. It is after all a never ending game of cat and mouse keeping up with malware, viruses, etc.
By the way, neither of the previous posters indicated they were using OnyX to deal with malware, etc. I think they were speaking of utilities in general and listed that as the first one and then the other stuff after that. I'd agree that using any utility to "clean up" stuff like app caches, log files, etc. is a waste of time as the system manages that automatically as you pointed out.
Two things:
- I downloaded AdwareMedic directly from the developer's website. I downloaded Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac directly from the developer's website. Any suspicion that I downloaded these utilities from some hinky third-party site is completely and totally unfounded.
- Your speculation about versioning issues with AdwareMedic/Malwarebytes is poor excuse-making--very poor excuse-making. It is one thing for anti-malware utilities to fail to identify or remove the latest malware. That is why these utilities provide mechanisms to update malware signatures as soon as new ones are identified. However, anti-malware should identify and remove every malware title from the beginning of time up to its last update.
As I wrote in my last post, c|net shuttered TechTracker and replaced it with application-specific downloaders for many of the titles in its database. Not all of the listed titles are provided a downloader; the software is downloaded directly from the developer. The downloaders install Spigot by default as they download the software that you want. If you know what you are looking for, then you can deselect the Spigot installation. However, most users have no idea what c|net is doing and will go with the default. If you do not deselect Spigot, then you will will have a standard Mac .dmg disk image file and a surprise after your download.
Although you many not know that you have Spigot, you may notice new and annoying behavior on your Mac. For me, it was the default search engine in each of my browsers had been changed to Yahoo!. AdwareMedic identified a Spigot installation on my computer and showed me its location. It was two files in a well-define location in my Library. These files are not hidden and they were not misnamed.
I was left to believe that AdwareMedic had idenfied everything. I updated AdwareMedic to Malwarebytes. Malwarebytes identified nothing on my computer. It was just by happenstance that I used Spotlight to search on "Spigot" for any residual files. I was floored when Spotlight found the Spigot executable. It resided in a well-defined location and was clearly labeled inside my Library.
I will repeat: There is no excuse for not identifying the Spigot executable.
I don't know you from a hole in the wall. Of course I wondered where you might have downloaded the stuff from. Don't take it personally. It certainly was not meant that way.
I was not speculating about versioning issues. I was wondering if the current definitions were aware yet of the offending program in its current form. It could have changed in some slight way resulting in the definitions needing an update to catch it. That's all. I'm not making excuses for anybody. It was just an idea as to why it may have not picked up on something that it had in the past. That may still actually be true. I wouldn't know but it is a possibility.
if Download.com is including stuff you need to notice and opt out of that's too bad. Shame on them, particularly when it is something considered malware, adware or whatever it is that it is or that you want to call it. To me, anything I would not want on my computer is bad. The rest is semantics. I don't care what it is called. Let's just say, it is all "badware." So much for Download.com being trustworthy. I consider doing that sleazy myself. This is why I use the Mac App Store or I go direct to the developer. I do not use sites like download.com and you just gave me a reason to be glad I don't.
Did you contact Malwarebytes to let them know this happened and ask for an explanation? I am guessing not or else you would either be critical of it or have some other comment. So you don't actually know any better than I do what went wrong there. Personally, I don't think it is reasonable to claim there is no excuse for not finding x file without at least contacting the developer to see if there is some understandable reason why such as what I suggested as a possibility. It seems unlikely to me that once created, this spigot file has never been updated or changed in any way but maybe it hasn't and maybe it is entirely Malwarebytes fault.
In any case, I don't blame you for being annoyed when a product does not perform in the way you reasonably expect it to. I do understand that. Where we differ I think is that I'll bother to contact a developer and try to resolve an issue together with them before I pronounce them and their product no good, etc. While not every time, many times I have had very good experiences that way and found good developers will sincerely try to fix things or explain when something goes wrong, especially smaller companies in my own experience. I can only suggest you might want to try that in the future.
Otherwise though, check roundups of products like these and av-comparatives, etc. for the leading products and go from there. I was doing that this morning actually and discovered a couple of solutions are actually better than what I am using currently so I think I will be switching.
By the way, for the Clam users the news was bad and I mean really bad. The app came in dead last at detections of malware with less than 40% vs Bitdefender as one example coming in at 100% detections. Some of the paid products also offer pluses like browser plugins to stop various infections of various types (I'll avoid the semantics here) and prevent them from happening to begin with. Some also warn of and block known phishing sites, etc. These are places Mac users can and do get screwed sometimes too.
So, I'd toss the Clam back into the ocean right away and get something better. Google for reviews or at least if you just want basic scans for free, grab Bitdefender's free version on the Mac App Store. You'll instantly be a lot better off than using the Clam.
Personally, I am going to evaluate Symantec's Norton Internet Security for Mac which has a free trial for this purpose that I got from the Symantec site this morning. I also just installed from the App Store the free version of Bitdefender there to check out. Ultimately, I will wind up going with the paid Bitdefender from the App store (30 bucks) or Symantec's product at 50 bucks a year which has the added benefit of 5 licenses that cover various devices to include my Windows 10 bootcamp install and my iPhone. That is an appealing offer and Norton also scored well in testing. Another I may try another time is Avast! which I have used with Windows in the past but found annoying for too many pop ups with false positives. All of these choices rated well in terms of impact on the system with in memory monitoring turned on. Note that you do not get this with the free Bitdefender version which just does manual scans. You have to purchase the paid version for constant monitoring.
While I would not argue with anyone claiming we are less likely to see attacks than Windows users the fact is Macs can be and are attacked. It is increasingly making the news in various tech sources I read such as Computerworld as Apple Computers become more popular. While I don't think other utilities are particularly necessary when the operating system does a good job of managing its own affairs, I think it is time to take threats on the internet seriously even for Mac users and use something to bolster our already good defenses. Ultimately though, none of them are perfect and they are always updating constantly as new threats are discovered including changes to existing threats, etc.
I'm just tossing some of that added stuff out not as part of my reply to you but for those who posted earlier.
Last edited:
Here's a good look at current offerings for 2015: http://www.av-comparatives.org/mac-security-reviews/
I thought I'd return with an update after taking the time to read through the 64 page AV-Comparatives report and also getting some advice from a friend online who is an admin for a large network of Macs in a hospital setting. I ultimately dismissed some options and have finally arrived at what I see for me as being an ideal setup for at least the time being.
It is worthy of note that my own situation involves booting into Windows 10 at times. So ideally a product that offered an all-in-one platform licensing arrangement was a plus although obviously, quality takes precedence over that. Fortunately, I found something that in my mind satisfies both criteria very nicely.
I considered security on my Mac in a wholistic way if you will and so evaluated password management as well. While many swear by products such as 1Password or Lastpass, for my purposes where I only use Safari in OS X and iOS as a rule, iCloud Keychain is fine for my purposes and the price is certainly right. However, I am going to now redo all of my logins with strong passwords provided by iCloud Keychain's suggestions for each login. To deal with the few logins I want available in Windows, I am going to rely on Firefox which syncs settings, passwords, etc. for various platform installs via the cloud. I'll just do those logins in OS X, copy and paste the strong passwords from iCloud Keychain to be saved into Firefox and then I will be all set when in Windows 10. So that takes care of that important matter.
As for a security suite, I am going to put this off until after El Capitan releases and either updates or new versions are released for various security products but when that happens, I plan to purchase Intego's excellent suite that includes a license for Panda's also excellent security software for Windows. This will run me 66 bucks annually which I consider a worthwhile expenditure given the coverage across platforms it offers me. These guys have been doing Mac security software only for a very long time and their product is very reliable as tested and also recommended by my expert friend. So that works for me. The version I am quoting a price for also includes firewall and a utilities package they call Washing Machine that offers a variety of useful utility apps and only adds a small cost to the package. It's a bonus here that I can support a Mac focused company with many years of experience delivering quality solutions for Macs rather than some other PC/Windows brand for which OS X support is not the same focus as their Windows support would be generally speaking. Reading the Symantec forums for Mac users gives a good example of what I mean here.
By the way, I realize OS X includes a good firewall which for some odd reason is turned off by default. However, the firewall included in the Intego suite has a nicer UI that is simpler to manage for both incoming and outgoing connections.
In the meantime, I am running the free Sophos Anti-virus for Mac which has a very simple interface and not a lot of bells and whistles but performs well in testing. It does require some setup but it is not difficult at all and the available help is clear and detailed. Basically, I just needed to tone down the reach of the full system scan and create two weekly scheduled scans of system areas for one and Home folder for the other. The product does provide constant file access scans as well as on demand scans you can configure to your liking as I just noted. This is free and will be fine for now until i purchase the Intego suite with Windows coverage as well. On the Windows side, Panda's free Windows anti-virus product was named PC Magazine's Editor's Choice for the past two years among the free competition and I went with that for now there. For those on a budget, I think this stuff in combination without spending a penny is probably fine. I prefer the paid suite more for some of the features it offers that I feel justify the expense in my own case. Lastly, I consider having the free Malwarebytes Anti-malware for Mac on deck a good idea just to sweep for adware or remedy the problem should it arise. It's well known for being good at that specifically. There again, the price sure is right. I have the stuff mentioned all installed now and I don't notice any performance hit is one last thing of importance to mention here before i provide you links to review these things for yourself if you are interested:
Where to get Sophos Anti-Virus
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-mac-home-edition.aspx
Where to get Malwarebytes Anti-malware
https://www.malwarebytes.org/antimalware/mac/
Where to get Panda Security Free Anti-virus for Windows if you need it
http://www.pandasecurity.com/usa/homeusers/solutions/free-antivirus/
Here you can read an extensive review in downloadable PDF form of leading Mac Security Apps recently tested
http://www.av-comparatives.org/mac-security-reviews/
Here you can read about Intego Mac security software if interested and download a 30 day free trial
http://www.intego.com/products
I have no association with any of the above companies but after a lot of research the above choices are the ones that look best to me personally. There are other excellent products to consider too however. So hopefully the AV-Comparatives report will be helpful in considering those in your own deliberations.
It is worthy of note that my own situation involves booting into Windows 10 at times. So ideally a product that offered an all-in-one platform licensing arrangement was a plus although obviously, quality takes precedence over that. Fortunately, I found something that in my mind satisfies both criteria very nicely.
I considered security on my Mac in a wholistic way if you will and so evaluated password management as well. While many swear by products such as 1Password or Lastpass, for my purposes where I only use Safari in OS X and iOS as a rule, iCloud Keychain is fine for my purposes and the price is certainly right. However, I am going to now redo all of my logins with strong passwords provided by iCloud Keychain's suggestions for each login. To deal with the few logins I want available in Windows, I am going to rely on Firefox which syncs settings, passwords, etc. for various platform installs via the cloud. I'll just do those logins in OS X, copy and paste the strong passwords from iCloud Keychain to be saved into Firefox and then I will be all set when in Windows 10. So that takes care of that important matter.
As for a security suite, I am going to put this off until after El Capitan releases and either updates or new versions are released for various security products but when that happens, I plan to purchase Intego's excellent suite that includes a license for Panda's also excellent security software for Windows. This will run me 66 bucks annually which I consider a worthwhile expenditure given the coverage across platforms it offers me. These guys have been doing Mac security software only for a very long time and their product is very reliable as tested and also recommended by my expert friend. So that works for me. The version I am quoting a price for also includes firewall and a utilities package they call Washing Machine that offers a variety of useful utility apps and only adds a small cost to the package. It's a bonus here that I can support a Mac focused company with many years of experience delivering quality solutions for Macs rather than some other PC/Windows brand for which OS X support is not the same focus as their Windows support would be generally speaking. Reading the Symantec forums for Mac users gives a good example of what I mean here.
By the way, I realize OS X includes a good firewall which for some odd reason is turned off by default. However, the firewall included in the Intego suite has a nicer UI that is simpler to manage for both incoming and outgoing connections.
In the meantime, I am running the free Sophos Anti-virus for Mac which has a very simple interface and not a lot of bells and whistles but performs well in testing. It does require some setup but it is not difficult at all and the available help is clear and detailed. Basically, I just needed to tone down the reach of the full system scan and create two weekly scheduled scans of system areas for one and Home folder for the other. The product does provide constant file access scans as well as on demand scans you can configure to your liking as I just noted. This is free and will be fine for now until i purchase the Intego suite with Windows coverage as well. On the Windows side, Panda's free Windows anti-virus product was named PC Magazine's Editor's Choice for the past two years among the free competition and I went with that for now there. For those on a budget, I think this stuff in combination without spending a penny is probably fine. I prefer the paid suite more for some of the features it offers that I feel justify the expense in my own case. Lastly, I consider having the free Malwarebytes Anti-malware for Mac on deck a good idea just to sweep for adware or remedy the problem should it arise. It's well known for being good at that specifically. There again, the price sure is right. I have the stuff mentioned all installed now and I don't notice any performance hit is one last thing of importance to mention here before i provide you links to review these things for yourself if you are interested:
Where to get Sophos Anti-Virus
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-mac-home-edition.aspx
Where to get Malwarebytes Anti-malware
https://www.malwarebytes.org/antimalware/mac/
Where to get Panda Security Free Anti-virus for Windows if you need it
http://www.pandasecurity.com/usa/homeusers/solutions/free-antivirus/
Here you can read an extensive review in downloadable PDF form of leading Mac Security Apps recently tested
http://www.av-comparatives.org/mac-security-reviews/
Here you can read about Intego Mac security software if interested and download a 30 day free trial
http://www.intego.com/products
I have no association with any of the above companies but after a lot of research the above choices are the ones that look best to me personally. There are other excellent products to consider too however. So hopefully the AV-Comparatives report will be helpful in considering those in your own deliberations.
Last edited:
I just remembered something else of relevance here. Earlier I suggested tossing out "the clam" and going with the free Bitdefender scanner on the App Store. I need to retract that suggestion after testing it personally for the following reasons.
When I ran a full system scan here using it to test it out I discovered it creates very large temp files in ~/library/containers/etc. that can become so large on a system with low disk space as to use up all the disk space and bring the system to a crawl while attempting to continue scanning. I investigated this behavior and noted temp files that grew to be over 12 gigabytes in size here when more space was cleared by moving a large app off the disk to an external USB drive so I had more room. I should have had more room to begin with but the product should also gracefully handle the case of low disk space and not consume every last megabyte if space is low which it did. I had 8 gigs free when I began the scan initially. Apple recommends 10 gigs free is adequate. I got this information by posing the question in an AppleCare support call at one time. It seems to be true in my experience. My system performance has always been good so long as I keep at least that much free.
Once I'd created an added 25 gigs free space while it continued running, it picked up speed again and the system became more responsive although of course performance is going to take a hit during any scan by any product given the disk accessing and processing involved. After this, I observed it managing the temp files which from there on in never exceeded 4 gigs in size for whatever reasons.
The product also had a false positive for a python for Windows installation exe buried in a .zip file inside the dropbox app which I obtained directly from dropbox. Although no harm was done in this case, it deleted that file without my permission and there was no setting to prevent that that I am aware of. This file should minimally have been quarantined instead and I should have gotten a pop-up allowing me to decide what to do with it in my opinion. At this point, before it could delete something I did care about, I shut it down and removed it.
I wrote to the company to make mention of these issues and ask for an explanation. This is very recently and I have not heard back from them yet. I suggested the obvious in terms of allowing user choice, etc. and gracefully handling low disk space situations.
So after that experience I'd instead recommend Sophos instead.
When I ran a full system scan here using it to test it out I discovered it creates very large temp files in ~/library/containers/etc. that can become so large on a system with low disk space as to use up all the disk space and bring the system to a crawl while attempting to continue scanning. I investigated this behavior and noted temp files that grew to be over 12 gigabytes in size here when more space was cleared by moving a large app off the disk to an external USB drive so I had more room. I should have had more room to begin with but the product should also gracefully handle the case of low disk space and not consume every last megabyte if space is low which it did. I had 8 gigs free when I began the scan initially. Apple recommends 10 gigs free is adequate. I got this information by posing the question in an AppleCare support call at one time. It seems to be true in my experience. My system performance has always been good so long as I keep at least that much free.
Once I'd created an added 25 gigs free space while it continued running, it picked up speed again and the system became more responsive although of course performance is going to take a hit during any scan by any product given the disk accessing and processing involved. After this, I observed it managing the temp files which from there on in never exceeded 4 gigs in size for whatever reasons.
The product also had a false positive for a python for Windows installation exe buried in a .zip file inside the dropbox app which I obtained directly from dropbox. Although no harm was done in this case, it deleted that file without my permission and there was no setting to prevent that that I am aware of. This file should minimally have been quarantined instead and I should have gotten a pop-up allowing me to decide what to do with it in my opinion. At this point, before it could delete something I did care about, I shut it down and removed it.
I wrote to the company to make mention of these issues and ask for an explanation. This is very recently and I have not heard back from them yet. I suggested the obvious in terms of allowing user choice, etc. and gracefully handling low disk space situations.
So after that experience I'd instead recommend Sophos instead.
Last edited:
I have MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac installed. Doing a search via EasyFind, including Invisibles, found neither ZipCloud or Spigot.
FWIW, It has been reported that easy/automatic downloads from CNET are a cause of the uninvited malware. Going directly to the developer's site and downloading from there helps preclude malware.
From page 6 of the Malwarebytes manual that is easily accessed from within the app using Help->Documentation in the Menubar:
"If Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac didn’t fix your problem, you can contact Malwarebytes support through the app. Simply choose Contact Support from the Help menu, and the following window will open:
If you want to get access to the information gathered as part of a support request, but for your own purposes and without contacting support, that is easy to do. Simply choose Take System Snapshot from the Scanner menu. This will open a window showing just the system information and nothing else. You can feel free to copy any of the text from this window or choose Save from the File menu to save the snapshot to a text file on your hard drive.
This feature can be helpful for techs who are trying to troubleshoot a problem with your computer, or for times when you’re posting to a forum about a problem you’re having and need to provide some contextual information, or any number of other uses."
So, I just contacted support for myself to ask about both Spigot and ZipCloud. I made mention of this thread although I didn't think to link to it and asked them for a reply explaining why these two are being reported by users as not dealt with by Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac. I will try to remember to report back here when and if I hear back from them with information about this issue. Meantime, nobody using this needs to wait for me and can easily do the same thing with even more useful data if the stuff is still on their system as the report may show that and where exactly it is located. It doesn't show up on the report I sent since I don't likely have either of these on my system. I don't use 3rd party download sites if I can help it. Sometimes it is unavoidable when a developer uses them to distribute a free app or free trial unless of course I decide to skip it instead.
"If Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac didn’t fix your problem, you can contact Malwarebytes support through the app. Simply choose Contact Support from the Help menu, and the following window will open:
If you want to get access to the information gathered as part of a support request, but for your own purposes and without contacting support, that is easy to do. Simply choose Take System Snapshot from the Scanner menu. This will open a window showing just the system information and nothing else. You can feel free to copy any of the text from this window or choose Save from the File menu to save the snapshot to a text file on your hard drive.
This feature can be helpful for techs who are trying to troubleshoot a problem with your computer, or for times when you’re posting to a forum about a problem you’re having and need to provide some contextual information, or any number of other uses."
So, I just contacted support for myself to ask about both Spigot and ZipCloud. I made mention of this thread although I didn't think to link to it and asked them for a reply explaining why these two are being reported by users as not dealt with by Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac. I will try to remember to report back here when and if I hear back from them with information about this issue. Meantime, nobody using this needs to wait for me and can easily do the same thing with even more useful data if the stuff is still on their system as the report may show that and where exactly it is located. It doesn't show up on the report I sent since I don't likely have either of these on my system. I don't use 3rd party download sites if I can help it. Sometimes it is unavoidable when a developer uses them to distribute a free app or free trial unless of course I decide to skip it instead.
I noticed after posting that the main window of the app has an option labeled Next Steps that you are advised to click on if your problem has not been solved. So I clicked this and was taken to a support page here:
https://support.malwarebytes.org/cu...re-for-mac-didn-t-solve-my-problem-?b_id=9511
Scrolling down I found this:
"Anti-Malware for Mac didn't remove an unfamiliar app that was installed along with the Adware
Adware is often installed alongside other apps that are legit or semi-legit. At this time, Anti-Malware for Mac does not remove these apps."
So perhaps this is why Spigot and ZipCloud were not picked up? I'd still like a clarification from them but this may be why.
https://support.malwarebytes.org/cu...re-for-mac-didn-t-solve-my-problem-?b_id=9511
Scrolling down I found this:
"Anti-Malware for Mac didn't remove an unfamiliar app that was installed along with the Adware
Adware is often installed alongside other apps that are legit or semi-legit. At this time, Anti-Malware for Mac does not remove these apps."
So perhaps this is why Spigot and ZipCloud were not picked up? I'd still like a clarification from them but this may be why.
In your zeal to defend and excuse MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac, you dispute charges that I did not make. At no point did I say that the utility installed Spigot. To the contrary, I have been clear that Spigot was installed by c|net's downloaders.
FWIW, it is my preference to use software collection sites like to identify software and its developers. To download software, I prefer to download software directly from the developers' websites. As the Mac App Store has gained prominence, Download.com and MacUpdate.com have changed practice and made my preferred strategy more difficult if not impossible. Many developer websites are no longer listed. Even Google searches often do not yield developer websites. For software that has not migrated to the Mac App Store, updates are available only by going through third-party websites like Download.com and MacUpdate.com.
My definitive criticism of MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Mac is that it fails to do the minimum expected of an adware scanning utility. Furthermore, it leads the user to believe that nothing more needs to be done, excuses by you and Dirtyharry50 notwithstanding.
Unwittingly, the two of you have reiterated points that I made in earlier posts. Adware developers have enlisted the cooperation of websites like cnet.com and yahoo.com whose reputations were above reproach in the past. The defense that the two of you gave MalwareBytes placed the onus of ensuring its integrity on its users. I can't think of a more damning comment about any security utility than warning users that it bears as much scrutiny as the unwanted software that it is intended to protect against.
ZipCloud isn't even adware. It can be called a potentially unwanted program though when it is packed with something else. Spigot is invasive enough that I'd consider it obnoxious but also a potentially unwanted app in the case where the user does allow it as an option when downloading something else. From what I've read a lot of major PC vendors actually deliberately use and install spigot in various forms on brand new systems including Dell, as part of the notorious crapware often bundled in their Windows installations.
In any event, I've come out and told you I am not making excuses for Malwarebytes. What I have told you and anybody else reading the thread who uses Malwarebytes is how to report a problem via the app to tech support and get a direct response from them about it which apparently you still have not, preferring I guess to rely on your own assumptions as to what happened there and why. I also have mentioned that I took the time to send a report to them asking for clarification on this matter. That hardly constitutes making excuses for them. What I am doing is giving them an opportunity to explain this which does not seem like something you are willing to do. That's fair enough too. Just remove it from your system and fine. What I don't think is especially fair is jumping to conclusions without affording them the opportunity to respond and then publicly bashing their product without having done that. That's not making excuses for anybody either.
By the way, the guy you were i think responding to didn't say anything about the utility installing spigot. He pointed out downloading from sites such as download.com is a known cause of this problem as you have also pointed out. He wasn't in disagreement with you there and neither am I. In reading more today I note softronic is also at least some of the time guilty of this as well. They aren't alone of course. Other download sources often offer the Chrome browser and other various stuff which users have to explicitly opt out of more often than not. I can see how easy it would be for someone to accidentally wind up with more than they bargained for.
You continue to defend MalwareBytes against charges that I did not make. At no point in any previous post did I state that ZipCloud is adware. At no point in any previous post did I imply that ZipCloud is adware.
To the contrary, after discovering that ZipCloud, a software title that I had never before heard of, had been installed on my computer, I Googled it. Google gave me a link to ZipCloud's website. The ZipCloud website led be to believe that ZipCloud added no value to my computing experience. However, the site allayed any suspicion that ZipCloud is harmful. Trashing the ZipCloud icon appears to have rid me of it.
Anyone with the ability to read with comprehension can see that I suspect that ZipCloud was installed by MalwareBytes, but I anything but certain that this was the case. This is very unlike the case of Spigot which explicitly changed the default search engine and home page in my browsers to Yahoo!. Again, my decision to go public with my criticism of MalwareBytes was motivated by my discovery that it and AdwareMedic before it does not remove or identify the Spigot executable.
I am not here shilling for any software developer. Neither am I here to throw bombs at software because it doesn't serve me ice cream and cake for my birthday. I post to help my fellow Mac users and owners. I tried to give enough information so that users know that my writings are based on research and thought. However, I did not include everything that I did to prepare for my post. If I did that, then my posts would be longer than yours.
Okay. I appreciate that you meant well in sharing your experience with others. I honestly do. I assumed that to begin with. I mean well also in encouraging people such as yourself to seek resolution to issues via support. I believe it is more helpful to learn the outcome of that process than to simply hear the original complaint. I also believe it is most importantly more helpful to the user themselves as well as to future improvement in products in some cases. That's why I argue for that.
I got an email today from Thomas Reed in response to my support ticket, who as you may know is the original developer of this product. Rather than quote bits from that especially where he didn't have the opportunity to see this thread for himself , I am instead sending him back a link to this discussion which he asked for. So hopefully we will soon get an authoritative response from Mr. Reed and can then put this discussion to rest.
I forgot to highlight this which is worthy of its own post anyway.
Mr. Reed responded to my query on a Sunday morning about a product that is made available at zero cost. This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier in the form of a developer who really goes out of his way to respond to people when given the chance to.
Mr. Reed responded to my query on a Sunday morning about a product that is made available at zero cost. This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier in the form of a developer who really goes out of his way to respond to people when given the chance to.
I am unimpressed by claims that MalwareBytes Anti-Malware is free. I have been around long enough to remember when the only Mac virus scanners and removal tools were free. Let us not forget that MalwareBytes Anti-Malware for Business is very definitely not free.
Although adware and viruses are very different kinds of threats, we should hold anti-adware utilities to the same standards to which we hold antivirus utilities. If MalwareBytes claims to remove adware, then we should judge it by how well it removes adware. If a fee is required to ensure complete removal of adware, then I think that most users are willing to pay the fee. Other actors may be willing to enter the market to compete with MalwareBytes on price.
I am willing wait for Reed's response to the issues that I have raised. You will do well to curtail your political announcements until then.
Can you tone down the hostility please? There's no need of it.
You would have been waiting a lot longer for a response from Malwarebytes without my help since you wouldn't contact support about your problems with the software yourself. You're welcome.
Now now, play nice, y'all.
I like Onyx, and have been using it regularly since Tiger came out years ago. It has never personally caused any harm to my computer's OS, so until it gives me a reason to not use it, mind as well. I like that it simplifies many "under the hood" features of Unix for the end user, especially if you don't always have the time or skill-set to tinker.
I like Onyx, and have been using it regularly since Tiger came out years ago. It has never personally caused any harm to my computer's OS, so until it gives me a reason to not use it, mind as well. I like that it simplifies many "under the hood" features of Unix for the end user, especially if you don't always have the time or skill-set to tinker.
Developer of AdwareMedic and director of Mac development at Malwarebytes here. It sounds like you believe that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac installed ZipCloud on your system, but that is absolutely not the case. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac will not install any third-party software on your system at all, especially not junk like ZipCloud.
ZipCloud is typically installed by adware installers. Most likely, whatever you downloaded that installed Spigot also installed ZipCloud.
I'm not sure that I understand how we "fanned the flames of malware hysteria." However, I would like to clarify on thing: Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac does actually include signatures for, and thus should remove, recent Mac malware.
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac will delete all components of Spigot that I'm aware of. If there is a new variant of Spigot out there that we don't remove all of, we'd like to hear about that. It sounds like you found this on C|NET, so I'll be going there next to see if I can find a sample that behaves the way you describe. If you have additional information, I would love to hear it.
I've not used those apps for years and I've not noticed any issues with my Mac. Performance is great, I'm not worried about malware. I think overall those apps are superfluous and unnecessary.
Your credibility has just taken a nosedive. I cannot comment on other adware engines, but I can comment on Spigot. Your software identifies and removes what for any other software type would be called settings files or support files or preferences files for Spigot. It identified and removed two such files for me.
It did not identify or remove the Spigot executable. The Spigot executable is contained in an unambiguously named bundle labeled "Spigot" without the quotation marks. Spotlight easily finds this bundle.
I have been very clear about my source for Spigot. Spigot is installed by c|net Download.com's downloader for OS X software. It is in the small print, but Download.com tells you what it is doing. The user may opt out of a Spigot installation. If you want to learn more about this mysterious new Spigot variant, then accept the defaults while using c|net's downloader. Then search your system for Spigot using Spotlight and then follow-up with a MalwareBytes scan. If you use MalwareBytes to remove everything that it identifies, the run Spotlight again.
I am pleased that you have agreed to test this for yourself.