if you haven't browsed the website that exist potential dangerous or just delete the email that contains virus, i think it is find without a anti-virus application.
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.
What's the best anti virus for Mac OS X right now?
- Thread starter Zen Desk Pro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ZDP, I can only speak to Sophos, avast! and Avira.
Of the three, Avira has been the lightest on CPU and friendliest UI to manage. Sophos, however, is like sprinting in kiln-fired tennies - heavy on time, hard on system-overhead etc. and as such I cannot recommend it despite a couple years ago being pretty popular.
avast! does everything an AV needs to do and does it well without much of which really standing out as exceptional; I like how often avast! seems to update their virus-definitions while Avira, perhaps being a smaller company(?), does not house a database as robust as avast!'s.
If you've heard of a current Mac infected by a virus, you've heard wrong. Macs are not immune to malware, but no true viruses exist in the wild that can run on Mac OS X, and there never have been any since it was released over 12 years ago. The only malware in the wild that can affect Mac OS X is a handful of trojans, which can be easily avoided by practicing safe computing (see below). 3rd party antivirus apps are not necessary to keep a Mac malware-free, as long as a user practices safe computing, as described in the following link.
Read the What security steps should I take? section of the Mac Virus/Malware FAQ for tips on practicing safe computing.
AV-databases update as signatures for new threats and attacks are identified. Definitions is freeware through which avast! updates their proprietary database(s).
I think you mean as new viruses are identified. That's how it has to work. There is no antidote until there is a virus, thus my question.
I have had my mac since late 2009 and never had a virus. Even after going to some questionable sites as well.
I too wanted virus protection and was told the same, that MAC comes with virus protection so I never got any.
With that said, I HAVE had my credit card info stolen but that was from using an ATM at a truck stop (since I am a trucker). After that, I never make ATM withdrawals except at my banking branch.
I too wanted virus protection and was told the same, that MAC comes with virus protection so I never got any.
With that said, I HAVE had my credit card info stolen but that was from using an ATM at a truck stop (since I am a trucker). After that, I never make ATM withdrawals except at my banking branch.
I have long felt the same, but I have just seen this data about recorded vulnerabilities in different apps and OSes between 1999 and 2015
OSX has had more vulnerabilities than XP in most years since they both launched, and cumulatively nearly twice as many in the whole period.
This seems to be be meat and drink to the antivirus industry and supports the view that OSX is just as (actually more) vulnerable than Windows, but the bad guys don't bother exploiting the vulnerabilities due to market share.
I really don't know what to think about this data, which is totally contrary to what I have believed for many years, so would welcome some informed explanation.
Maybe the explanation why there are so few actual threats against OSX in spite of more vulnerabilities is due to it being much harder to turn a vulnerability into a threat with OSX (due UNIX underpinning or whatever)? Is this true?
EDIT: This Register article puts some perspective on the data.
Last edited:
First, you don't need any of those apps to protect your Mac against malware, if you practice sensible safe computing. If you do elect to run any antivirus, you should only run one, since many AV apps conflict with each other, resulting in false readings.
This is not actually universally true. It can be true, but it isn't always. I can't speak for BitDefender, but I'm not aware of any conflicts between Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac and any other anti-virus software. I've also used ClamXav a lot and have never seen a problem with it, either. Having multiple layers of security, as long as those layers work well together, is always a good idea.
Thomas Reed
Director of Mac Offerings, Malwarebytes
These softwares are passive, unlike "active" anti-virus/malwares on Windows that monitor the user's activities and intervene if threat is detected. So if I don't manually tell ClamXav, Malwarebytes or Bitdefender to scan for threats, they don't do anything.
I use all three because virus/malware definitions and detection vary depending on softwares. Certain malware detected by a software may not be detected by another. Furthermore, yes, I practice safe browsing. But it's always nice to scan for virus and malwares time to time. Some attachments (files, pictures, ect) I receive from friends and families may unknowingly contain threats
I use all three because virus/malware definitions and detection vary depending on softwares. Certain malware detected by a software may not be detected by another. Furthermore, yes, I practice safe browsing. But it's always nice to scan for virus and malwares time to time. Some attachments (files, pictures, ect) I receive from friends and families may unknowingly contain threats
That's why I said:
I never claimed that was true for all apps. It is true that no such app is needed for OS X if the user practices safe computing, as previously stated.
That is certainly true, since no antivirus app has a 100% detection rate. That's another potential problem with running such apps: some users may have a false sense of security in running such an app, thinking they're protected from all potential malware, and fail to practice safe computing.
Practicing safe computing alone provides greater protection than running any antivirus/antimalware software alone.
It should be noted that malware or adware can still infect your Mac just fine using only a standard account. This is not to say this is a bad thing to do, but you need to be aware that a standard account is still vulnerable.
This won't protect you against malware or adware at all. In fact, it probably won't protect you against anything... the average Mac is hidden behind network hardware that acts like a basic hardware firewall, preventing any attempts to connect to that machine remotely without some specific user-configured means for getting through (such as Back to My Mac or port forwarding on the network hardware).
This is unnecessary and doesn't provide any additional protection. This is a carryover from Windows thinking and doesn't apply to OS X.
I'm aware but was thinking along the lines of if you have an external back-up via TimeMachine or whatnot, that if your S account had something malicious running on it amok, it would be limited to only what a non-Administrator could access or execute; meaning, that you could log out of S and into the A account, wherefrom wiping the overrun S account without afterthought and then using the back-up to set up shop again, so to speak. Correct me if I am wrong though.
I said only turn the firewall on, not that it related to malware. I assume the Mac's native firewall at a minimum blocks incoming connections that are not user-initiated, but if you run a malicious application locally and it establishes an Internet communication, then I assume that such a connection is erroneously permitted and renders the point of a firewall moot. Would you say it is then futile at all even to bother with it?
[doublepost=1452539044][/doublepost]
So administrator and standard-user are redundant concepts?
Running a standard user account provides no protection over running an admin account. For example, when installing software that needs to access system areas, it will prompt for the admin password, regardless of whether you're logged into a standard or admin account.
I do recommend enabling the OS X firewall, even though it doesn't protect against malware.
That is in part my point though; only you can approve things that can have system-wide consequences. Your brother on the account with all the music can't run application XYZ.
Are permissions and account-types redundancies though? It seems that if you set a Standard account to have the highest permissions on files etc. then you have essentially back-doored that user into Administrative status.
Yes, that's true... however, the user's folder is going to have LOTS of data in it in many different places. The average user is going to have a VERY hard time figuring out how to restore from a backup without either losing data or restoring the malware/adware that had infected the user account.
Plus, if you're using a standard, non-admin user account, you're going to get used to entering an admin username and password any time you want to install something new. This will happen in situations where an admin user wouldn't be asked at all, thus increasing the chances of "saturation." (In other words, the user gets so used to seeing a password request that they stop thinking about it as anything important.) This can easily lead to providing admin credentials when the user really shouldn't be doing so, and the standard account won't be any kind of barrier against that.
Now, obviously these are imperfect arguments against using a standard account. I don't mean to say that you should do so, or shouldn't do so. I'm just saying that every person has to consider their knowledge level and think carefully about the limited benefits vs the inconveniences of using a standard account.
The built-in firewall protects only against incoming, unexpected connection attempts (ie, those that were not in response to some outgoing request).
With regard to these kinds of connections, the average Mac should see absolutely zero of them. Your wireless router or cable/DSL modem will be the only device on your network visible to the outside world. Your Mac, sitting cozy behind that hardware, is totally invisible from the internet, and cannot be attacked remotely without some existing weakness poking through.
An example of a weakness would be any kind of remote access software, such as Back to My Mac. If you have that enabled, and a hacker manages to gain access to your Apple ID, the hacker would be able to penetrate your Mac. However, the firewall will do nothing about that. If you have Back to My Mac turned on, the firewall won't block connections related to that.
Thus, the firewall is useful only in very specific situations. One is if you have a Mac server connected directly to the internet, with the intent of allowing strangers to be able to connect to it. Then you'd want to control exactly what they can connect to. Another is when you are connecting to an insecure wifi network, and need to protect yourself against other people on that network. In that case, turning on the firewall and setting it to block ALL incoming connections could be useful.
As far as outgoing traffic is concerned, the built-in firewall does nothing about that. If you want an outgoing firewall, Little Snitch is good... but you'd better be ready to learn a LOT about the normal connections made by all the processes on your Mac, otherwise it will just generate paranoia.
(Edited to restore the end of the last sentence, which somehow got lost.)
Last edited:
I use two apps to be on the safe side: Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac and ClamXav. Both on demand software.
@thomasareed: it is a little bit off-topic, but Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac is much slower than your original software was, is there a reason?
@thomasareed: it is a little bit off-topic, but Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac is much slower than your original software was, is there a reason?
Last edited: