Anti Virus Software
 

The recent announcement of the OSX Trojan Horse made me think about whether or not to install new anti-virus software... I've used Norton Anti-Virus (OS9 and earlier), and I've tried the Virex app that comes with my dot.mac account. I try to avoid all Norton apps nowadays, and Virex is a dog (plus it doesn't do auto scanning of email attachments).

I've seen a few people mention SOPHOS as an alternative. What's the general consensus, or is there one, for which anti-virus solution is "best" for OSX??

Thanks!
GS

If "best" means good at zapping viruses - well, Mac OS X users are a bit short of testimonials:-)

Has anybody actually been infected yet? There maybe no consensus for that reason alone!

Like you I am avoiding Norton's stuff, but haven't given up on Virex just yet. Mainly because its free (for .mac users). It's very slow, and as you point out, doesn't search the incoming stuff.

The ideal virus-checker for today is one that searches all the incoming traffic via downloads and email. It doesn't really need to spend any time searching hard drives. I don't think viruses are spread via CDs much, unlike 10 years ago (by floppy then) So it's got to be good on incoming security, and updated frequently.

NAV 9.0.2 keeps Mac from carrying viruses; protects from future threats to OS X
 

1. Just as some people can be typhoid carriers and pass on the disease to others without coming down with it themselves, Mac users who do not use virtual Windows can pass on computer viruses to colleagues, friends and families who do use Windows or virtual Windows.

2. The weekly and more frequent virus definitions for Nav 9 one gets through Symantec's LiveUpdate are responsive to the latest worm and virus infection threats.

3. I have set the preferences to ignore CDs, but I set the preferences for NAV 9 to automatically check incoming mail, downloads, and compressed files that I receive with them. I turn off the compressed files preference as a timesaver when I do a periodic check of hard drives, but I sure leave it on in the meantime.

4. I really like the exceptional responsivenessI've seen from Mike Romo, on the MacFixIt Symantec forum Romo really listens and acts upon problems, complaints and suggestions for changes. And he apparently has strong support from top management because changes I and others have recommended have been implemented.

5. I remember thinking Macs were safe until I got my first virus in a floppy from a co-author and had to disinfect the hard drive and countless floppies. I remember buying a brand new G3 from my University bookstore and discovering the hard way that the OS the tech support manager thoughtfully installed for me was infected. I'm delighted that the UNIX base of OS X and the more attractive target of Windows has protected Macs that don't run virtual Windows--so far.

Respectfully, Norm

When has this happened? How does this happen? Wouldn't it only happen if I chose to forward an email with a virus attached to someone with a Windows machine? If I am wrong, please let me know, and show me where (besides a virus scanner reseller site) this has happened before.


Aren't they only threats at the moment? Not infecting a Mac machine and not being automatically sent on to Windows machines makes them rather harmless to a Mac machine I would think.


Do your log files show you that NAV 9 has stopped a virus from replicating and passing itself on, or just that it found it attached to an email? To me there is a big difference between the two.


Nice to hear that someone listens.


I'm sorry about that, but has there been a virus that has hit and worked on the Mac since the millennium? How long before that actually?

I don't want to sound naive by not using virus protection - but until I see something that can and will hurt my computer if I don't practice safe computing I don't see the point in adding extra bloatware to my computer. As for better to be safe than sorry - anti virus software doesn't do that - it only catches a virus if it is already out there and has done damage, never has it been able to catch something as it is released so as I see it, all it really does is protect against unsafe computing for those who don't practice it.


Respectfully, Eric

Yes, you are correct.
The ting about Mac anti-viral software is (for the big AV players) the definitions are only updated once a month. A lot of things can happen in a month.

mac X antivirus
 

have you looked into VirusBarrier by Intego ?

http://www.intego.com

Just looked at VirusBarrier... and the sales pitch looks good. It works in the background like NAV, but fortunately isn't a Norton/Symantec product... anybody have experience using and working with this app?

Like Adam Engst of TidBITS (http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-726.html), I would hope that people will shun Intego after their blatantly self-serving (and Mac-community damaging) announcement.

Complain to Intego
 

I found Intego's scare tactics to be unethical. I have sent them an e-mail saying so, and will not buy their products

I though the original poster was joking. Oooops. Do agree with you though - 100%.

I use Norton's AntiVirus 8.0.4 from SystemWorks without problem but won't touch the other components of SystemWorks. Have gone over to DiskWarrior.

I haven't invested on an antivirus program. Not planning since I have full trust on Apple. :)

I hope you're joking.

Although I'm not worried about a virus, even the Trojan horse, affecting my Mac, I want to make sure there's no virus embedded in anything I send to my less fortunate "darkside" computer friends. An for those Mac users who use Entourage or other MS email software, virus protection is necessary in order to prevent their Mac from sending out mass virus laden emails.

This isn't true. Despite them using an MS product for email, anything that would mass-mail itself would be a virus and it would be for a Mac. Windows viruses cannot infect a Mac.

I believe this is untrue.
I.e. I do not know of any circumstance in which Entourage (or indeed any other OS X mail tool) will send out email messages without you (the user) having explicitly requested the messages be sent.

At the moment, the only reason to have a virus checker on an OS X machine would be so you could scan the attachments that you received from others that you want to send on to someone else. If you don't send out attachments that came from elsewhere, there is no need to worry about viruses.

Schwartze (#4 this thread) asks people to pinpoint an occurance of this happening. He has a point. The only way that you can infect Windows machines is if you decide to. How would a Windows virus infect your Mac? And the opposite possibility: If you were infected with a yet to be seen Mac virus, presumeably (with Windows you never know!) your Windows friends are safe.

As I see it there are only two possible ways that a Mac could pass on a virus is :-

1. If you're running Entourage (or similar) in VPC with a shared Ethernet connection. And even then I'd want to see this happen before I believe it. We may find this out in the not too distant future! Now that M$ have acquired VPC, what's to stop them selling Windows Entourage only, forcing Mac users to get VPC. M$ have previous in this sort of thing :-) Slightly worrying!

2. The other possibility is some attachment being received by Mac users containing exe code for a Windows machine, not being recognised by Mac anti-virus, and the user passing the attachment on as safe. This is possible. But depends on the anti-virus not being able to recognise Windows viruses.

EDIT Oh! Hayne's posted. Shouldn't have stopped for coffee!

<chuckle> What am I, chopped liver? :)

Not chopped liver, just chopped off by the top of my screen!

This Win/mac incompatibility does suggest that with very careful design, it would be possible to 'sprinkle' Macs through an email network, and halt infections.

There's a lot of talk about mutli-OS environments being 'more secure'. But ultimately, I don't think it will come to fruition. Corporations and institutions will continue to buy WinTels because that is on what 90% of their software is based. I think most have their fingers and toes crossed that MS can follow through in it's (IMO windbag) claims that the next iteration of Windows will be 'secure'. I giggle myself to sleep at night. ;)

We're deliberately ignoring anyone who supports the Bruins. :)

LOL! I wondered how long before you noticed! As a longtime Bruins fan, the very last team in the world that I want to see them play is the Habs. History has this terrible habit of repeating itself.. but I digress (from this thread).