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.
Which Anti-virus should I get?
- Thread starter neoserver
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you buy Norton Virus, you deserve to have your head beaten.
It is a bigger problem than the viruses it is supposed to protect you from.
If you buy Norton Disk Destructor, you deserve to be shot.
Since it will likely destroy your disk. They stopped supporting it long ago, so it will likely fry a Intel-based machine.
It is a bigger problem than the viruses it is supposed to protect you from.
If you buy Norton Disk Destructor, you deserve to be shot.
Since it will likely destroy your disk. They stopped supporting it long ago, so it will likely fry a Intel-based machine.
Hmm, I had the same problem at my school. Only I finally got through to school administrators that my Mac was more secure than any other computer on campus!
i dont know where you go to school, but on campus here you are made to have a virus scanner, but since they force you to have a virus scanner they also HAVE TO provide it for you.
call your ITS at school and see which one they are going to give you, and if they refuse to give you one, then you have the right to refuse to purchase one. thats one reason you bought a mac im sure
call your ITS at school and see which one they are going to give you, and if they refuse to give you one, then you have the right to refuse to purchase one. thats one reason you bought a mac im sure
Yes they do. They do it when setting up for access to the Res network.
As to ClamXav, that might be a nice solution. It would probably satisfy their desires to run a clean ship.
plus its free
They give out Norton for the Windows PCs. but i'd have to wait for them to order Norton for mac. which I don't want to do.
As to ClamXav, that might be a nice solution. It would probably satisfy their desires to run a clean ship.
plus its free
They give out Norton for the Windows PCs. but i'd have to wait for them to order Norton for mac. which I don't want to do.
The anti-virus software the school wants him to get is to not only protect his machine, but others on the nework. Macs can still spread PC viruses.
OnceUGoMac said:
EXACTLY.
Most of the infrastructure and staff computers are running either Linux or Solaris. Only the computer labs and a few staff machines run windows here.
However that can't be said for the other student's computers running on the Res network.
neoserver said:
I'd just get ClamXAV. It's going to be more and more the solution over time as the power of the open source developers behinds it grows.
But... and this is a big butt....
I don't buy this EXACTLY. Think about it this way:
On your network are:
A - Mac with no AV
B..Z - Windows computers with whatever AV is supposed to be on them.
Now the Mac can only pass -- a virus cannot get from one file to another (replicate) on the Mac. So the only situation in which risk exists is for an infected file to come to the network via A and then get passed to some other computer F. But F has anti-virus software. If that software detects the virus in the file, it will block it whether it comes from A or the public internet. If it does not, it will not block it, regardless of how it gets in.
If you contrast that to the situation where A has the same AV that B..Z have, then there is no net risk increase, because either (1) the only additional place the virus can get is the Mac, which is immune to it, or (2) the AV software that can't protect against the virus still fails to prevent it from getting onto the network.
So I really don't believe that argument makes any sense... it's appealing on the surface, but in its depth it's a fallacy.
OnceUGoMac said:
This doesnt really make much sense. Most viruses propagate by first infecting the host computer then sending itself out via address book, etc.
If the virus cant infect a Mac, there is really no way for a Mac to spread the virus. Unless the Mac user downloads an infected Windows file and shares it with others. Which isnt likely, unless the user is running Windows in parallels or something because there is no reason for a Mac user to have an EXE.
mkrishnan said:
Thats all nice and dandy, but if a user temporairly disables their AV or forgets to update it. Also, the Norton for windows that they provide includes the firewall.
suneohair said:
or i'm downloading something for a friend.
I;ll probably just go with ClamXav just to save myself the trouble of getting in an argument with the sysadmins.
I like big butts and I cannot lie....mkrishnan said:
FWIW we run clamav at work on an e-mail gateway and it catches lots of stuff before Norton does. (Though the converse is also true, it doesn't catch everything that Norton sees).
B
neoserver said:
Pssh... if the user disables AV then they're vulnerable to more than just your Mac. And I have no problem with AV running on the Windows computers. My point is merely that there is no net increase in security by virtue of the Mac having AV.
EDIT: I also think that as ClamAV gets to be the default on Linux server systems... as it will be in Leopard Server... it's just going to become the defacto standard. In fact Apple probably should just jump the gun and put ClamAV into OS X Workstation / Client / whatever. And you can turn it off and never think about it again, but it would be fabulous for Clam's publicity, cost Apple nothing, and allow for bragging rights and all sorts of snotty commercials.
I do totally understand. That's why I started by suggesting Clam. It's free, it's written by open-source programmers, so it's relatively well behaved, unlike commercial solutions. And it's gaining more and more ground.