MacScan - Antivirus
 

Everheard of MacScan?

I've been a windows user for most of my life and I've just converted to MAC. So, before you shoot me for my ignorance, just be gentle as I'm s n00b. During my past computer life with Windows, I had 3 security checks before I even start to surf the net. I used Search and Destroy, Microsoft Security and Ad-aware. I even run my Anti-Virus everyday. It was getting that I'm constantly checking if I have trojans and viruses. So far MAC users I've talked to have told me that having an Anti-Virus is not necessary. Being the paranoid person that I am, I would like an opinion from this forum.

If you recommend something please advice of url address as well as cost if there is a cost and even better if it's freeware, which I hope it is... :D

thnx forum,
tomea

There are no Mac OS X viruses. I wouldn't worry yourself to death over the issue.

HOWEVER: There will come a day when someone decides that it would be really cool to write a Mac OS X virus. This is an inevitability, not a possibility. ClamAV is the weapon of choice these days for the paranoid, the "just in case", and the "back pocket tool" crowds. Here's a link to a site where you can get a GUI version of ClamAV called clamXav.

ClamAV and clamXav are free (Apple actually ships ClamAV in OS X Server), and are certainly not bad tools to have.

I can second the vote for ClamXav.

Again, we are lucky not to have any viri on macs, but thats not to say we never will! ClamXav will also get rid of windoze viri so you don't infect anyone else!

Might be worth getting out og the 'Windoze mentality' of thinking everything has a virus, spyware, malware, adware and is going to break..... you have a mac! :D

I'm sorry. I have to post this in every virus-related thread. :(

:)

/just havin' fun

ClamXav and any other AV software will only get rid of Windoze viruses since none can possibly have any definitions for nonexistent Mac viruses.

Two reasons for not using anything:

1) If/when a Mac virus is found in the wild, it will be easy enough to download ClamXav or something else, complete with up to date definitions that will include the virus. There's no need to waste your time or your processor cycles on this now.

2) By using AV on Mac you are protecting PCs and encouraging the idea that all systems are equally vulnerable. They are not. Windoze is the most insecure platform available. The more PC users who discover that theirs is the only platform that absolutely requires AV and Anti Spyware software, the better for everyone.

Instead of protecting it, it's time we let natural selection weed out the PC.

No reason for arrogance; IMHO there's no mac virus so far because nobody bothered to write one (actually, this in turn is probably because the density of macs is too low to support a viable epidemic). But just imagine a script like the (in)famous "opener" wrapped in a piece of malware that promises to install a screen saver with pictures of lightly clothed women... A lot of users would instantly type their admin passwords.

More generally on security, I found this an interesting read.

cheers, pink

That would be a Trojan, not a virus. As for viruses, the Symbian OS for cell phones had just a few hundred thousand users when it got its first virus and Windows Vista was in the hands of a few beta testers for 8 days when a virus was out. Security by obscurity may limit the number of viruses, but it doesn't explain why there are none. Nobody has bothered to write one because it requires too much effort, especially when it's so easy to write a PC virus.

Add a routine to extract email addressess from Address book and a mail sending mechanism and you have a virus. This actually was in the first version of my post, but for the reasons I stated I don't believe there this would spread effectively, so I left it away. And I thought we were talking about security in general, not just viruses.
Well, I was talking about a viable epidemic.


cheers, pink

Spreading effectively is the critical part of any virus. Many Mac users correctly use a standard account for day to day work, so anything that asks for an admin password is going to throw up a big red flag. Even those who use their admin account for day to day work will still need to input the password, so propagating a Mac virus would be far more difficult than Windoze, where merely double clicking the file can cause infection.

"So yeah, I don't bother making sure I get enough vitamin C. I figure, when an illness hits, I can run to the fridge and grab an orange."

Arrogance will only get your data hosed before you can install anti-virus software.

No, it's more like: Don't bother evacuating your city until a specific hurricane warning has been issued.

If one is issued for my area, I think I'll have enough time to get out.

The problem arises when you see the warning after your roof has been torn off by the winds. The difference here is that the NOAA can see a hurricane coming a week or more away, but you won't know a virus has hit until people are already infected.

There are two scenarios that are possible:

1. You read people's reports on the major Mac sites about the Big Virus that's hit[ting], and you install some anti-virus software to scan your system. You're either clean or it cleans you at that point. Your data is fine.

2. You're the poor mofo who gets to send in the report to the Mac sites 'cause your drive just got wrecked by the Big Virus. Oops.

There is nothing wrong with running anti-virus software before there's a threat. We're not talking about ass-tacular NortonAV here; ClamAV is pretty solid stuff that isn't going to wreck your box.

But believe what you wish.

In the event of a real Mac virus, option 2 will happen to some people whether or not they have AV installed, since there will be no current definition until after they report it.

It's still easier to wait for the storm warning, and it still doesn't do Mac users any good to protect PCs.

That is correct. Yesterday's antivirus sw won't protect you against tomorrow's virus, not on the PC and not on the Mac.

Really? Not spreading Windows viruses isn't a good thing?

If viruses can slow down networks and hurt schools and businesses--which they inarguably do--then stopping them is certainly a good thing.

this would be a good time to remind everyone of our market share :)

why would the other 90% of the world's computers need our lowly 5% market share to help out? oh yeah, they suck ;)

I'll help out Microsoft when they make a real exchange client for the Mac. Until then...

No, it is not a good thing because it ensures future purchases of Windoze computers which ensures even more Windoze viruses flooding peoples networks. It's like over prescribing antibiotics; the system won't develop immunity to the viruses (by dumping Windoze) and the viruses will continue to become more damaging because they will have to adapt to the AV software.

If helping Windoze systems actually stopped viruses, you would be right, but all you're doing is slowing the flood a little (imperceptibly) in the short term and adding to it immensely in the future.

If we really want to use this kind of analogy, we'll have to be exact; Mac users of your liking in this scenario would be the "asymptomatic carrier". I recommend a quick google search for "typhoid Mary" to get an impression what these can cause and what authorities think of them.

Moreover, the analogy is wrong. If we want to stay with biology, it would be more like a farmer growing corn on huge fields. After repeated epidemics that ruin his harvest, he switches to wheat on all of his fields. What do you think will happen ?

cheers, pink

There's a lot wrong with it. I had a lot of CPU usage problems with it.

Sticking with the biology analogy, we have a predatory/parasitic species that we would do well to be rid of (Windows) that would be affected by your typhoid Mary (Mac or Linux systems.)

1. That is highly desirable from the perspective of an owner of a Linux or Mac system, but the vast majority of infections will always be from other PCs because they are so vulnerable.

2. No authority can or should require Mac or Linux owners to protect Windows systems. A computer that needs constant care and protection fails at its only reason for being: to be a useful tool. Computers aren't humans, so let the fittest survive and weed out the weak as soon as possible.

3. Mac or Linux owners voluntarily protecting Windows systems are harming their own systems. This harm is short term in the form of wasted processor cycles (minor, but still harm) and more importantly long term in that it reduces their market share relative to Windows by encouraging PC users to stay with that platform.

No ? If I were a sysadmin and would realize that you use your powerbook to deliberately release viruses into my corporate's network, I'd know who is about to become extinct.

The biggest problem with your approach is that the basic assumption is just plain wrong: that viruses and worms can do any significant harm to M$. Apart from the fact that this cannot be true because otherwise XP would never have come into existence (M$ should have become extinct by then), you'll have to admit that the decision for an operating system is governed by more factors than just security (actually, security is generally considered as at least manageable). Much more important are things like TCO, compatibility to what we have, and acceptance by the users (as an example, the city of Munich (Germany, old Europe) has just decided to delay the introduction of Linux to give users time to first get used to OpenOffice in an environment they know...)
So, no matter how many viruses you thrust upon M$ users, they'll just go on and update their virus definitions (or not). But to make them switch, you need better arguments.

cheers,
pink

I do not deliberately release viruses. I merely make no attempt to look for them. There is a big difference. The police for example cannot require citizens to help them hunt down criminals. By the way, if you were a system admin, the computers would belong to the company, and it would be the company's decision. Require me to install it on my personal Mac however, and you'll find yourself in court.

Viruses and worms have already done significant harm to MS. They are the main reason many people start looking for alternatives. Once they start looking, they find them. That's why Mac and Linux systems have so many new users who used to be PC users.

Yes, there is more than just security involved in an OS choice. Part of the decision is based on what you know. Many people only know MS, so getting them to switch takes time, along with the pressure of problems like viruses. As for TCO, I can't think of a more costly OS than Windoze.

Making them switch isn't what I'm talking about. By not protecting the PC, Mac users merely increase the probability that a PC user will switch, but they don't make PC users switch. Conversely, by protecting the PC, that probability is decreased. I'd rather see it increase.