Snow leopard antivirus works with safari, but does it work with chrome?

[cloakedpegasus]

Snow leopard antivirus works with mail, safari, ichat, but if i install google chrome will it work with it?
I am talking about the built in malware detector that comes with Snow Leopard

 

[Nermal]

What antivirus are you talking about?

 

[roadbloc]

Virus? What is one of them? Is it like catching a cold?.....

 

[old-wiz]

What Snow Leopard antivirus?

 

[spinnerlys]

There are NO viruses for Mac OS X, so it is better to run Norton AV, so you have at least one the AV software you talk about has something to do.
Will you tell us what AV software you use?

Btw, an AV software is designed to protect the computer in whole, so that will include Chrome or any other application you run.

But don't forgot to install Norton AV and at least five other AV titles. Then you will have the full Windows experience.

PS: Don't get stuck in a floating rock.

Also have a look at the following links, as the information presented there might be helpful in your future endeavours into Mac OS X and could clear up initial confusion and may even prevent harm to your system or your files.

 

[GGJstudios]

Snow leopard antivirus works with mail, safari, ichat, but if i install google chrome will it work with it?

Since you discovered MRoogle almost a month ago in another thread, try using it to search for "virus" and you'll find plenty of threads that will tell you there ARE no viruses on Mac OS X and there IS no "Snow Leopard antivirus" app.

 

[calderone]

Since you discovered MRoogle almost a month ago in another thread, try using it to search for "virus" and you'll find plenty of threads that will tell you there ARE no viruses on Mac OS X and there IS no "Snow Leopard antivirus" app.

The responses here are truly mind blowing. While the OP may have incorrectly called it "antivirus," surely you could have figured out what the OP meant. In fact, the OP even did the leg work for you when they mentioned "Safari, iChat and Mail."

OS X, since Leopard, does include a file quarantine system which is specifically designed to catch malware, trojans and even viruses (if there were any being distributed).

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3662

To answer the OPs question. From what I have read, Chrome is a "file quarantine-aware application" as mentioned in the Apple KB above. This is verified by it's Info.plist.

In addition, items downloaded with Chrome do indeed get tagged with the quarantine attribute.

So, yes, Chrome is file quarantine-aware.

 

[GGJstudios]

OS X, since Leopard, does include a file quarantine system which is specifically designed to catch malware, trojans and even viruses (if there were any being distributed).

The file quarantine system is NOT an antivirus app. Mac OS X will quarantine ANY and ALL executable files downloaded from the internet and will ask if you're sure you want to open them on first launch. It doesn't matter if it's perfectly safe; it will still ask. There's no AV logic in the quarantine process.

As for checking for malware, it may check for a few known and documented malware types, but it is not to be confused with a full-blown AV application, which does much more. The fact remains, there ARE no viruses that run on current Mac OS X.

 

[calderone]

The file quarantine system is NOT an antivirus app. Mac OS X will quarantine ANY and ALL executable files downloaded from the internet and will ask if you're sure you want to open them on first launch. It doesn't matter if it's perfectly safe; it will still ask. There's no AV logic in the quarantine process.

As for checking for malware, it may check for a few known and documented malware types, but it is not to be confused with a full-blown AV application, which does much more. The fact remains, there ARE no viruses that run on current Mac OS X.

No, it is not, which I said from the start of my response. However, the OPs question was still quite clear and the answer obvious despite their misunderstanding of the topic.

Nowhere did I say it could or should be confused with a "full-blown AV application." Nor was I disputing that there are no viruses that run on Mac OS X today (even though I think your wording is incorrect).

And finally, while there may be no "AV logic" in the process, Snow Leopard is obviously able to locate malware and malicious software, so while today there may be no viruses in the logic (since there are no viruses being distributed) that may very well change. Also note, this does seem to be "logic" but what do I know?

Are you done trying to save face?

I would like to make a correction though, I incorrectly stated that Leopard can catch malware, I should have split those two actions.

 

[GGJstudios]

No, it is not, which I said from the start of my response. However, the OPs question was still quite clear and the answer obvious despite their misunderstanding of the topic.

Nowhere did I say it should be confused with a "full-blown AV application." Nor was I disputing that there are no viruses that run on Mac OS X today (even though I think your wording is incorrect).

And finally, while there may be no "AV logic" in the process, Snow Leopard is obviously able to locate malware and malicious software, so while today there may be no viruses in the logic (since there are no viruses being distributed) that may very well change.

Are you done trying to save face?

First, it's not about "saving face"; it's about correcting misinformation.

Your assumption that the OP is talking about the file quarantine feature is just as much an interpretation as others' assumption that the OP is referring to AV software. Surely, you've been around long enough to know how many come to this forum with incorrect information. The OP said "antivirus", so it's perfectly logical to believe they meant what they said, unless they clarify otherwise.

I'm curious to know why you think my "wording is incorrect".

And while "that may very well change", we're operating in today's world, not a speculative future.

 

[ARF900]

Why would you want antivirus on your mac?

 

[calderone]

First, it's not about "saving face"; it's about correcting misinformation.

Your assumption that the OP is talking about the file quarantine feature is just as much an interpretation as others' assumption that the OP is referring to AV software. Surely, you've been around long enough to know how many come to this forum with incorrect information. The OP said "antivirus", so it's perfectly logical to believe they meant what they said, unless they clarify otherwise.

I'm curious to know why you think my "wording is incorrect".

And while "that may very well change", we're operating in today's world, not a speculative future.

I am sure the OP believe's what they said. They simply think it is "anti-virus software." However, the clue they give is that it works with "Mail, Safari, iChat." What "antivirus" software would be so limited in scope? Within moments of reading the question I understand what the OP was referring to despite them calling it "anti-virus."

What bothers me is that many of the respondents here were so eager to tell someone they were wrong and recommend the use of "MRoogle," that they missed the opportunity to see what the OP was referring to, correct them and offer the answer.

Since everyone had done the work of telling the OP that there is no anti-virus software built-in and there are no viruses, I didn't feel the need to belabor that point anymore in my response.

I have had this argument with someone else here, but I don't really like the statement "There are no viruses for OS X." Namely because it isn't necessarily true. A more accurate statement would be "There are no known viruses currently being distributed on Mac OS X."

I don't understand the point of your last comment. Of course we live in todays world, and in todays world there exists in Snow Leopard the ability to detect malware which could prove useful in the future. The speculative future could be today, with that next piece of software you download.

Why would you want antivirus on your mac?

A few reasons.

1. If you work in an environment that consists of PCs and Macs, Macs are capable of passing a Windows virus, so Antivirus software on the Mac adds an extra level of protection for Windows users who think they are getting a trusted file.

2. If you are a cautious individual.

 

[GGJstudios]

I have had this argument with someone else here, but I don't really like the statement "There are no viruses for OS X." Namely because it isn't necessarily true. A more accurate statement would be "There are no known viruses currently being distributed on Mac OS X."

My statement was:

The fact remains, there ARE no viruses that run on current Mac OS X.

... which is completely accurate. There ARE no viruses that run on Mac 10.5 or 10.6. Period. Could that change in the future? Of course. But for today, there are none. If it makes you feel better, you can say "there are no viruses in the wild that run on current Mac OS X", as I have stated many times in this forum, but the facts are the same.

I don't understand the point of your last comment. Of course we live in todays world, and in todays world there exists in Snow Leopard the ability to detect malware which could prove useful in the future. The speculative future could be today, with that next piece of software you download.

Common sense, and many in this forum, will tell you the reason that AV software on a Mac can't protect against future viruses is because it doesn't know what to look for. Snow Leopard can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist, because it doesn't know how it would be constructed, what its payload might do, which parts of the system it might affect, etc. Snow Leopard's current ability to detect some malware is no protection against future malware that may be completely different.

And as for recommending MRoogle, a simple search with MRoogle will bring up dozens of threads where this very conversation has taken place again and again. That's why it's a useful tool.

 

[calderone]

My statement was:

... which is completely accurate. There ARE no viruses that run on Mac 10.5 or 10.6. Period. Could that change in the future? Of course. But for today, there are none. If it makes you feel better, you can say "there are no viruses in the wild that run on current Mac OS X", as I have stated many times in this forum, but the facts are the same.

It is really a matter of semantics. I am not willing to say as a matter of fact that there are "NO" viruses. And while you may have said the second statement other times, you didn't state it here. But again, it doesn't really matter.

Common sense, and many in this forum, will tell you the reason that AV software on a Mac can't protect against future viruses is because it doesn't know what to look for. Snow Leopard can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist, because it doesn't know how it would be constructed, what its payload might do, which parts of the system it might affect, etc. Snow Leopard's current ability to detect some malware is no protection against future malware that may be completely different.

And as for recommending MRoogle, a simple search with MRoogle will bring up dozens of threads where this very conversation has taken place again and again. That's why it's a useful tool.

Quite obviously it cannot protect you against future viruses, which is why one should be cautious. This, again, was something that didn't need to be said as I did not imply that AV software could protect against future viruses. The original comment you responded to was my statement that Apple could add known viruses to the quarantine process, which would obviously be after they discover it.

If I am correct in my assumption, none of those previous threads would have answered the OPs question. And while it may be useful tool, I find the constant responses like spinnerlys to be rather rude. A simple link in your signature is enough, instead, spinnerlys spams nearly every thread that "may" have been answered with his MRoogle and beginners junk. And notice I say "may," because as has been the case, the answer may not be there at all.

 

[GGJstudios]

And while it may be useful tool, I find the constant responses like spinnerlys to be rather rude. A simple link in your signature is enough, instead, spinnerlys spams nearly every thread that "may" have been answered with his MRoogle and beginners junk.

And yet, despite those who waste time complaining about such posts, there are always responses from newbies to the contrary:

thank u so much ...

Oh wow I'm a noob first time I've seen MROOGLE...
*Bookmarked.
Thanks!

 

[calderone]

And yet, despite those who waste time complaining about such posts, there are always responses from newbies to the contrary:

And this proves what?

The first one could have very well been a sarcastic response, and given the way spinnerlys responded...

Wow.
Searching doesn't become newcomers.

Well, what do you think?

In the second one, you didn't post huge images and you took the extra step of giving an actual thread that could have been found. The opposite of what I am complaining about.

 

[GGJstudios]

And this proves what?

The first one could have very well been a sarcastic response, and given the way spinnerlys responded...

Well, what do you think?

In the second one, you didn't post huge images and you took the extra step of giving an actual thread that could have been found.

I agree the "Searching doesn't become newcomers." comment was most likely stimulated from frustration about the same topics being asked over and over again, and could have been omitted. In this case, the OP was informed about MRoogle almost a month ago by spinnerlys.

If you'll notice, the vast majority of my MRoogle posts include a link to search results or directly to threads which relate to the question being discussed. In other words, I do the search that the OP could have done and post the results along with the MRoogle recommendation.

While you may not like the way some choose to respond to threads, those responses aren't for your benefit; they're for the OP. I usually find the best approach is to post in the way I choose to, and let others post the way they choose to, as long as they're not posting something that could mislead or misinform. Some don't mind typing the same responses over and over. As for me, my arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome necessitate a copy/paste approach whenever possible.

 

[calderone]

I agree the "Searching doesn't become newcomers." comment was most likely stimulated from frustration about the same topics being asked over and over again, and could have been omitted.

If you'll notice, the vast majority of my MRoogle posts include a link to search results or directly to threads which relate to the question being discussed. In other words, I do the search that the OP could have done and post the results along with the MRoogle recommendation.

While you may not like the way some choose to respond to threads, those responses aren't for your benefit; they're for the OP. I usually find the best approach is to post in the way I choose to, and let others post the way they choose to, as long as they're not posting something that could mislead or misinform. Some don't mind typing the same responses over and over. As for me, my arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome necessitate a copy/paste approach whenever possible.

If the majority of yours include links to threads with answers, that is great and that is how it should be done. The reason I think that should be done is because you may not be sure if the question has been answered, and if you know it has finding the thread is easy.

Are they are the benefit of the OP? If I am coming to ask a question, I don't want the first post to be about how I should search for the answer. If one really has the urge, answer the question and if that works mention that they can search.

Most of the time, spinnerlys, does not answer the question and just tells the person to search. Even here, the question wasn't *really* answered, but of course those images at the top of the thread.

To spinnerlys, make a guide and link to it. Please stop reposting this junk.

 

[cloakedpegasus]

Thank you for the replys

After many googles I could not find the answer to my specific question. I am sorry I confused so many by using the term "antivirus". Perhaps definition based malware catcher? Yes on many sites it states that it works with firefox, safari, mail, and ichat. However nowhere mentions chrome. If i missed a link that discusses the issue in question, a referral there would be welcome. I did not mean to cause any disturbance.

 

[calderone]

After many googles I could not find the answer to my specific question. I am sorry I confused so many by using the term "antivirus". Perhaps definition based malware catcher? Yes on many sites it states that it works with firefox, safari, mail, and ichat. However nowhere mentions chrome. If i missed a link that discusses the issue in question, a referral there would be welcome. I did not mean to cause any disturbance.

Please read my first reply Post #7 https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9860521/, I think it answers your question.

 

[cloakedpegasus]

Thank you calderone

Yes I read your post above. You seem to be the only one that understood my issue. As per apples knowledge byte: "File quarantine-aware applications" attach quarantine attributes. I downloaded two files, once in safari and the other in chrome. When attempting to open both were tagged with quarantine attributes. From the information presented to me and by reading apples knowledge byte which states "When you open a quarantined file, the file quarantine feature will check to see if it may include known malware" I am led to believe that the only role that these "compatible" applications play is in tagging files with quarantine attributes. After this, the OS will check the file BECAUSE it is tagged. To answer my question, I believe chrome is compatible with OS X's malware detection feature. Am I correct in my conclusion?

 

[calderone]

That is exactly what I stated in my post.

Chrome is file quarantine-aware and does indeed tag downloaded files with the com.apple.quarantine attribute, which is then checked by the OS on execution.