Which Anti-virus should I get?

neoserver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
335
0
I'm getting a Mac Pro here soon and due to school policy, I need to get Anti-virus for OS X.

Which one do you guys suggest? Norton? Virex?

Thanks a lot.
 

levitynyc

macrumors 65816
Aug 19, 2006
1,094
3,153
I may not own a Mac, but even I know there is no need for a Virus Scanner for OS X
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
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.
 

Josephkyles

macrumors regular
Sep 7, 2006
237
0
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!
 

neoserver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
335
0
Unfortunately, its not my choice. I'd love to not own one.

But like I said in my first post, its due to school policy.
 

levitynyc

macrumors 65816
Aug 19, 2006
1,094
3,153
neoserver said:
Unfortunately, its not my choice. I'd love to not own one.

But like I said in my first post, its due to school policy.
Please explain that there are no viruses for OS X.
 

bep207

macrumors 6502
Jul 20, 2006
259
0
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
 

neoserver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
335
0
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.
 

OnceUGoMac

macrumors 6502a
Mar 3, 2004
914
0
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.
 

neoserver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
335
0
OnceUGoMac said:
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.
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.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,777
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
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.
 

suneohair

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2006
2,137
0
OnceUGoMac said:
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.

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.
 

neoserver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
335
0
mkrishnan 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.
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:
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.
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.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,368
973
New England
mkrishnan said:
But... and this is a big butt....
I like big butts and I cannot lie....

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
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,777
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
neoserver 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.
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. :D
 

neoserver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
335
0
mkrishnan 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.
I see the point you're making. But the sysadmins here are really picky and would prefer that everything had AV.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,777
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
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.