About Macs and AV software

"If you don't think that it is possible because the OS is inherently secure...you are a fool." Similarly, if you think the OS is inherently secure in the first place, you are also fool. (Or is that what you meant, tayme?)

I'd say tayme's right on the money here. There's nothing about OS X or Unix that makes them inherently secure against malware attacks and, in fact, most implementations have a much less secure design. Taking the chance of running with no AV software is a needless risk. To me, the most interesting part of the story was the sidebar poll that asked readers whether they would install AV software on their Macs. When I looked, 60% said they wouldn't even if Apple suggested it. That level of arrogance is just the kind of thing that invites the bad guys to start targeting them. With such a small number of protected machines they're perfect as zombies. They'd be pwned and wouldn't even know it.

I don't use anti virus on my pcs and have never had a problem. Every once in a while the hype will get to me and I will install something and scan and...again nothing. Ever. I don't understand how intelligent people get this stuff on their machines.

"Also, I would say that while I don’t use OS X regularly anymore (who would with Windows Vista and 7 around?), I would never install AV on that system, ever. And that’s true even if I were using it 24/7. It may not last, but for now at least, Mac users don’t need AV. That’s the simple truth." Who are you and what have you done with Paul Thurrott? Seriously, that is so right on the money that I still can't believe it. Despite rejoinders from Mike and others, Paul has it exactly right on this one.

Content management systems can be an arrow pointed right at the heart of a company's image. Virus: 0. Nada (There were some for Mac OS and for "System xxx" before the Mac OS name) Malware of other forms: some Ability to spread Word Macro malware: just as present as on Windows, although one isn't affected oneself (especially in Office 2008, which doesn't do macros). Virus in the Mac OS (and prior--that name appeared late) (not Mac OS X) period was a problem, going way back to the WDEF virus that pretty much started it all on personal computers (way before Windows). (WDEF = Window Definition, executable code which could be included in a document to define an oddball window or execute anything the bad guys wanted to at system level.) I missed one of those by being 2 months behind in mounting a CD from a then-popular magazine. -- John (who longs for the carefree days of the "dogcow")

Waethorn Right. Again, for those who believe Apple ads and don't know computer architecture, there is nothing in Unix or OS X that is inherently secure. In reality, the Windows NT family is architecturally more secure having been designed to meet the NSA's B and C level standards and having been certified as a "Red Book" C level operating system. That's a level of security certification that no commercial *nix OS ever met (although a couple of specialized versions built for the military and 3-letter agencies and never sold to the public did)

The problem with this thinking of not needing AV (or we really should call it AM software for anti-malware to eliminate the semantics) is the current threats are nearly all based on users letting them in, the social engineering aspect. I've said this before many, many times, but it is no longer the single rogue person creating these things. Rather, it is in many cases quite advanced crime syndicates, getting as many computer users to give out financial data, whether this be in terms of phishing, or in terms of software that steals that data. They follow the money, and the money is on the OS that has the most marketshare. Sandi at Spyware Sucks had a very good analysis of the problem here http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2008/12/03/1655627.aspx. Folks, the threats are real. It doesn't matter whether your OS is the most secure or impenetrable (not possible). If you leave the door open, the crooks will come in, no matter whether you have the best lock and a moat with sharks with fricken laser beams attached to their heads. robertsjoe will paint this as simply stupid users getting what they deserve. However, the threat will only get worse as the Mac marketshare continues to increase.

chuckb84 Actually, everything you quoted was opinion except the statement that he doesn't use OS X much. And, while it's admirable (if wordy) to include enough of a quote to show context, if you don't call out what you disagree with, then your statement of agreement applies to the whole quote.

Before I bought my vista machine I ran XP for 3 years without any anti-virus programs. I did not have any virus issues. As long as a user is smart and knows how not to be tricked by phishing sites, email attachments, etc. They should be fine. That's my opinion. But I certainly would tell people who do not know these things to install virus software. As far as Mac's not needing AV. Hmmmm. I probably would not put it on there either. But for people with no clue about the dangers out there, I do not see why it would be such a bad thing.

@waethorn - That was my meaning...you stated it much better. --tayme

"Haven't had a virus on my PC in pretty close to six years now." You won't know that unless you have an anti-virus, though, right?

@waethorn - "A friend of mine who works for one of the country's biggest IT security firms can attest to that..." I totally agree with everything that you have in that post. The real concern is not so much viri(?) on home PC's(OS X based PC's included), they are bothersome, but not so risky to your personal data - except for the zombies or bots or whatever you want to call them...Go ahead, if you feel that secure, by all means run naked..but, on my home network I have all of the bases covered, and see no performance hit. Corporate and government networks being compromised is a big risk, thus every machine on those networks should be considered at risk. Anybody with true, large corporate experience will agree with that hands down. Any good firewall or anti-malware tool used in corporate settings is non-intrusive and does not impede the real work that goes on. --tayme

In my opinion, these Mac owners who are running with no anti-virus or anti-spyware are tempting fate. It will be a matter of time, before a major incidient like a "Blaster" or "Sasser" strikes the Macs as they gain in consumer notoriety. Just because they've been mostly ignored for the better part of a decade or longer, doesn't mean anything coming to the future. I know these virus writers want the bragging rights as the first virus to break the Macs defenses. I know we'll have the usual suspects in the cabal saying that their okay. They haven't had any incidents thus far. That OS-X is superior and it doesn't need that stuff. That reminds me of the U.S. mindset on September 10, 2001, before the worst incidents of international terrorism struck the next day. If you just look this year at the sheer number of vulnerabilities and patches on the OS-X side, Mac users should be flocking to the stores for anti-virus and anti-spyware. Thankfully, as part of the Windows growing pains, we've dealt with the incidents. The OS and the User base has been educated in what to do. Vista can clearly claim lower vulnerabilities thanks to those growing pains. Windows Defender, Windows One Care, Morro, and UAC are part of the new experience. Its not perfect but its made the security stronger. Compared with prevous versions, Vista has made good strides. This isn't a maybe or a theory. This is a definite that someone out there will crack OS-X and take advantage of the lax attitudes.

panache Pedantically correct in that theory is never "certified". Only actual implementations are "certified". What everyone outside of the NSA calls certified is, by their jargon, "capable of being used in a C2 certified installation" That gets around things like copying Windows NT on an unused partition of an insecure computer system and then claiming your system is "C2".

panache Or, to put it in an analogy... If you have a hardware component that is rated as 5 nines reliability, it doesn't mean that your computer will meet 5 nines, only that the specific component won't be the one that makes your reliability worse than required. You could screw up on other components. In the same way, the C2 rating on Windows NT doesn't mean your installation will be certified as C2, only that it won't be Windows NT that will cause it to be less secure than required. You could screw up on other components.

@Waethorn, you should contact Steven King and see if he has some fiction writing he can offload on you. For every "story" you invent about a Mac worm destroying corporate data, making that customer move to Vista, I can counter with 50 Windows Virus/Malware infestations that I could provide links to using Google and 20 seconds of my time. Oh here is a real story about Windows users moving to Macs, link included. http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/20/apple-army-hackers-tech-security-cx_ag_... In case the link is broken. "Wallington, a division chief in the Army's office of enterprise information systems, says the military is quietly working to integrate Macintosh computers into its systems to make them harder to hack. That's because fewer attacks have been designed to infiltrate Mac computers, and adding more Macs to the military's computer mix makes it tougher to destabilize a group of military computers with a single attack, Wallington says. This past year was a particularly tough one for military cybersecurity. Cyberspies infiltrated a Pentagon computer system in June and stole unknown quantities of e-mail data, according to a September report by the Financial Times. Later in September, industry sources told Forbes.com that major military contractors, including Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ), Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ), Northrop Grumman (nyse: NOC - news - people ) and Raytheon (nyse: RTN - news - people ) had also been hacked."

"For every "story" you invent about a Mac worm destroying corporate data, making that customer move to Vista, I can counter with 50 Windows Virus/Malware infestations that I could provide links to using Google and 20 seconds of my time." Every time one of these discussions comes up, "Waethorn" points to a customer of his whose business was nearly destroyed by some as-yet-unknown-and/or-fixed Mac virus that forced the customer to abandon Apple and move to Microsoft. Every. Single. Time. I'm through believing these anecdotal stories. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's like reading Whitley Strieber's alien invasion stories. You get the feeling Wae is cobbling together bits and pieces of what he's read and inventing "customers" for this forum so he can spread his WinJihadist agenda. Nonetheless, Mac users should run A/V software. Period. Paul's off the reservation (again) on this one.

"Corporate and government networks being compromised is a big risk, thus every machine on those networks should be considered at risk. Anybody with true, large corporate experience will agree with that hands down." Yup. The only people that don't get this is Apple and its apologists. "For every "story" you invent about a Mac worm destroying corporate data, making that customer move to Vista, I can counter with 50 Windows Virus/Malware infestations that I could provide links to using Google and 20 seconds of my time." I have yet to see any real companies that post information about the operating system that they use in those cases. Can you honestly find information about the operating systems that were used and their update status, as well as the security software that was in place? I didn't think so. My friend can't divulge information about their clients, nor of specifics about the case. That's typical for IT security firms. I would imagine that no company would want this information to get out about them either since it would look bad on them. Confidentiality and security go hand-in-hand. I guess that's why Apple dismissed the case and wouldn't offer any support in the matter, claiming that there was no problem. After all, it debunks the myth that is their security claims. I would imagine that Apple would probably have the gall to send their lawyers after the company with a C&D order had they made the case public. "Every time one of these discussions comes up, "Waethorn" points to a customer of his whose business was nearly destroyed by some as-yet-unknown-and/or-fixed Mac virus that forced the customer to abandon Apple and move to Microsoft." Nope. It's the same story every time. I use it as a prime example. And it's not fiction.... But it IS a comedy! :P

"I think I'd rather have the Google Toolbar!" You already have that. It's the Safari search bar.

"Nope. It's the same story every time. I use it as a prime example. And it's not fiction...." I heard from a friend that if you live in Canada and Jerk off too much you will go blind. Its true really.

Tayme: Exactly. But once again the Apple trolls appear out of their parent's basement to turn every topic into an OS X vs. Windows debate.

Delmont you seriously that dense??? This is a blog post about OS X, Apple and AV, from Paul on the Winsupersite. Where Paul intentionally throws out flamebait about why would anyone want to run OS X, when Vista and Windows 7 are out. Then add to that WeeLittlethorn, and Microsoft Mikey start posting fairy tales and you wonder why it turns into a OS X vs Windows debate???

"I heard from a friend that if you live in Canada and Jerk off too much you will go blind. Its true really." That was uncalled for. In any case, for Mac users, they don't have to - they already are. After they buy, they still go through the motions though.

No wonder I misread my calendar and WAe's post yesterday:)

DRWAM - I'm with you...I hate all of those toolbars...especially Google's. We block them successfully here. If a friend or family memeber calls me with a problem, I make them uninstall it before I come over to look at their problem... --tayme