DiggJoin DiggAbout

Apple now "encourages" antivirus use for Mac OS X

appleinsider.com — After years of jabbing Microsoft for the seeming need to run antivirus software on Windows, Apple has quietly posted its own recommendation for similar security with its own operating system.

made popular 38 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Apple Files Patent For Camera Hidden Behind Display

  • 465 diggs
  • Made popular 2 hr 24 min ago
  • 91
  • www.appleinsider.com

False Alarm: Apple Mac OS X Anti-Virus Recommendation Is Old

  • 1126 diggs
  • Made popular 37 days ago
  • 140
  • gizmodo.com

Steve Jobs Makes Less Per Year Than You Do

  • 220 diggs
  • Made popular 1 day 1 hr ago
  • 96
  • tech.yahoo.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Flyer00, on 12/02/2008, -63/+441Why? I thought Macs were immune to viruses? ;)
    • u8myfoood, on 12/02/2008, -43/+23No one officially declared that, it was just assumed by many, whom happen to not know much about computers in general.

      Come on what do you expect, a large number [*most not all] of Mac users also believed that the iPod is the best/only music player out there with many features that beat out all the rest and is also a great bargain.
      • aznhomig, on 12/02/2008, -1/+44Definitely implied by the Apple advertisements and even on their own website where they claimed their operating systems were inherently more resistant to virus attacks.
      • _skin_, on 12/02/2008, -26/+13And the iPod is the best music player and has been since it came out. iTunes and DRM suck, but the iPod is a very good MP3 player.
      • MWeather, on 12/02/2008, -8/+28The iPod is a hard drive with a wheel.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -17/+13Best is subjective. Most mp3 players have failed because they stuff ***** features into a ***** plastic case designed by a 13 year old boy in taiwan (programmed by him too, an even bigger problem).

        iPod isn't any of those things, it has a fair amount of features, but the ones people want it for work well, which is why people keep buying them.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 12/02/2008, -8/+7There has almost always been antivirus software on the Mac. I remember using the freeware Disinfectant on my Mac Classic back in the day. Commercially, Symantec Anti-Virus and Virex have been around since the late 80's.

        And Apple has always supported anti-virus software for the Mac. When Apple launched the .Mac service, they offered Virex as part of the package.

        Regardless of whether or not there are viruses currently threatening the Mac, it's important that Apple encourage users to have anti-virus software so that the eventual viral outbreak that's coming doesn't spread like wildfire.
      • unitedatheism, on 12/02/2008, -8/+3Did anyone ever attempted to the fact that the ipod was the first widespread mp3 player to include a harddrive? When we had 128, 256 or the incredibly large 512mb of solid state mp3 players we could also have 20gb for less than half gigabyte's price.
        That's the reason for ipod being selling so well at first place, not design, not brand, not interface, not price(well, to some extent it is) nor anything. If you want more than 512mb of mp3 files (which in that time I wanted and most of p2p users may likely want too) it was your only option. That was my first contact with Apple, DRM, ***** proprietary programs/interfaces and all the other things I thank god (and I'm an atheist) I'm thru now.
      • thenonhacker, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5"No one officially declared that"

        Mac Fanboy replies are so predictable.
    • ptFoe, on 12/02/2008, -6/+65they are if you put condom over your ipod
    • Archer007, on 12/02/2008, -19/+3I want a GoogleOS.
      • heinzfischer, on 12/02/2008, -9/+1http://www.thinkgos.com/
      • insertAliasHere, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8gOS isn't google OS, even if they try to be.

        Small print from the bottom of the page:
        Google, Google Icons, and the Google Logo are trademarks of Google Inc. gOS is not affiliated with Google or their partners.
      • DracoFlameus, on 12/02/2008, -3/+5If you just want all ur personal data transfered to a big copamy you could use Windows as well.
    • bradleyjx, on 12/02/2008, -18/+98If you were making a virus, assuming entering into any OS would be equally as difficult/easy, would you choose the market share of Apple OS or Microsoft OS?

      It's not that Macs are immune to viruses, it's more that Windows is such a large target.
      • eggsovereasy, on 12/02/2008, -9/+125With the smugness of some Apple users I'm surprised someone hasn't done it just to make them shut up.

        That being said, I probably won't be installing anti-virus on my Mac.
      • kelly, on 12/02/2008, -23/+13eggsovereasy,

        I'm sure it would have been done if it were that easy.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -31/+24God please stop repeating that *****. It is a very small factor, much more significant is the number and severity of vulnerabilities and how long they stay unpatched. MS has a history of sitting on its ass doing nothing for months while botnets pop up thanks to a specific hole in Windows.

        The real problem on Windows XP was Microsofts completely incompetent RPC implementation that ships open and listening on every machine, without the users knowledge, and until SP2 without a firewall. This was the cause of all the worm problems and such a thing will probably never hit OS X because there aren't highly vulnerable ports sitting out in the open even though OS X doesn't ship with a firewall on by default (yes, Apple is an arrogant jackass)

        The real problem going forward is going to be browser vulnerabilities and subsequent privilege escalation, on Windows that is more easy because most XP users are admin. If you trick a user into running something though, it doesn't matter what platform they are on or how it functions architecturally, they are screwed either way.
      • MWeather, on 12/02/2008, -5/+37"If you trick a user into running something though, it doesn't matter what platform they are on or how it functions architecturally, they are screwed either way."

        Yeah, but usually only that user is screwed, not the OS. That's the difference between Mac/Linux and Windows.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -3/+13There are rootkits for Linux as well, but they are usually not used in the same attack vector as those targeting Windows.

        There is proof of concept code for all of them, so claiming any of them are hardened or immune to malware is absurd. Windows however makes it quite easy to pwn a box REMOTELY with minimal effort, especially if there isn't a firewall protecting it.
      • rimantas, on 12/02/2008, -2/+22Then again, how does that explain Mac OS8/9 having viruses with the even smaller market share?
      • pathy, on 12/02/2008, -4/+8mrsteveman1,

        Could you provide some examples of Windows being remotely compromised?

        Recent examples, if you would, not things like Sasser which have been patched.
      • Angostura, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5mrsteveman1

        The other problem with XP, or perhaps with the application developers is/was a fair-few applications failed to run properly in a non-Admin account. This meant that most users simply opted to run in an Admin account day-to-day. I've never had a problem with any Mac app in non-Admin.

        I suspect this situation is improved under Vista, but I haven't really tried it out. Anyone?
      • mdmcgee, on 12/02/2008, -11/+8Considering that the current installment of OSX is unix based, the chance of a legitimate virus being released for it is quite slim regardless of market share. Unix has been around since 1970 and in the last 38 years there have been a grand total of 11 viruses released. None of them for any modern unix.
        Trojans and rootkits are a different story but those require manual installation and are not the same thing.
        You can argue "small market share" == "less likely to be attacked" all day long but history (almost 40 years) shows you are wrong.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4There was a hole in one of the open-by-default services just a few weeks ago, probably port 445 which is what NBT runs over i believe.

        Most people have firewalls now, otherwise it would have been yet another worm. There is however a new botnet being assembled thanks to another recent MS bug, its probably still on the front page of ars right now.

        Vista does better running apps but it still asks for your password to run certain apps that shouldn't need it, in contrast to just failing to run them which is what XP would have done. The end result is users are used to entering their password all the time and think nothing of yet another request for it after running some program, perhaps malware, perhaps not.
      • unitedatheism, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5"There was a hole somewhere, somewhen, somehow in one of the open-by-default services"
        I love when people mention their sources in statements, so other people can verify authenticity of that.
        I'm not saying that you're wrong, it's just that I'm tired of these "A friend of mine knows a guy who could do that" "I heard there's a way of making napalm out of frozen orange juice" "Happened to the neighbour of my ex-girlfriend" kind of comments.
      • thecheatah, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3For anyone doubting there exist remotely exploitable holes in windows: http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/12/02/0133231.shtml
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Well, this is an IT issue, anyone who pays attention to security bulletins or tech news, or has to work in this industry, knew about this stuff, and it isn't really in dispute.

        Microsoft is getting better, but they are still touching up the paint on a wooden shack and calling it a condo.
      • insllvn, on 12/02/2008, -2/+2"With the smugness of some Apple users I'm surprised someone hasn't done it just to make them shut up.

        That being said, I probably won't be installing anti-virus on my Mac."

        I don't have any witty commentary or well thought out retort to your position. I just wanted to repost it so that you could read it for yourself. My god man, did you even read over what you typed before you hit reply?
      • castletech, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2Education is the best AV out there.
    • superkendall, on 12/02/2008, -28/+5Then you're an idiot. Mac users know they are not immune to viruses. They also know there are none yet.

      Zero still beats thousands, even if the potential for viruses exists.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -4/+13No some Mac users are arrogant little bitches who live in a ***** fantasy world.

        Hopefully using this mini won't turn me into one.
      • smmakira, on 12/02/2008, -0/+11As a Mac user this was a totally idiotic statement. I bite me thumb at thee sir!

        Every operating system has more than one virus. While it is harder/ less likely to get a virus on a Mac, it's certainly not impossible.

        I would only suggest Anti-virus measures on a Mac in a business environment. Otherwise you can just use your common sense to avoid them.
      • Tbyrd073, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Depending on common sense doesnt work to well.
    • TVarmy, on 12/02/2008, -5/+25Apple seems to be hedging their bets. It's great marketing that the Unix-style kernal and networking OSX is based on are both intrinsically more secure than Windows XP and Vista, and low market share also plays a large role in keeping the number of virii down. However, OSX has security holes, like every piece of software, and they probably don't get patched as fast as Ubuntu and other Linux distributions because of greater quality control.

      Since OSX is thus vulnerable to a small degree, Apple is wise to change their marketing and thus dodge a class action lawsuit if a viable virus emerges for OSX.
      • Hortnon, on 12/02/2008, -5/+19I would argue that Vista has embraced something similar security to Unix, and has as a result been largely unaffected. I haven't seen any "virus outbreaks" on Vista, have you?
      • ism70605, on 12/02/2008, -3/+19It is viruses, and not virii. Even if the word "virus" did follow latin grammar it would be viri.
      • kronix2, on 12/02/2008, -2/+11"OSX has security holes, like every piece of software, and they probably don't get patched as fast as Ubuntu and other Linux distributions because of greater quality control."

        The difference is that Apple denies the existence of the holes, accuses the security researchers of incompetence, then silently fixes the holes, releases an update while still maintaining there was no hole, and that their software is flawless.
      • oneoverzero, on 12/02/2008, -0/+8"It is viruses, and not virii. Even if the word "virus" did follow latin grammar it would be viri."

        Actually, it would be virus, because the word it came from (virus - toxin/poison) is fourth declension, which means (among other things) that it has the same singular as it does plural. But no matter, it's viruses, and it wouldn't be virii no matter how you look at it.
      • unitedatheism, on 12/02/2008, -7/+3"I would argue that Vista has embraced something similar security to Unix, and has as a result been largely unaffected. I haven't seen any "virus outbreaks" on Vista, have you?"
        No, I haven't heard of Windows viruses, virii and worms outbreak in a long time........





        Ok, just kidding: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ...
      • FredFredrickson, on 12/02/2008, -2/+5And the ***** part is that Apple usually takes months to patch the holes in their software. If something big ever happened to their platform, they'd never be able to fix it in time.
      • beesaretasty, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7"intrinsically more secure" than Vista? Calm down fanboy.
      • anemptygun, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2well said.
      • Hortnon, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2@unitedatheism

        l2read

        Windows Server != Vista

        To break it down further:
        "PCs with an active firewall are said to be secure against such attacks. Under Vista and Server 2008, moreover, prior authentication is necessary before the error can be exploited."

        So, specifically, Poorly managed Windows Server != Vista

        Please, fanboy more.

        Sources
        http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/Microsoft-patch ...
        http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin ...
      • castletech, on 12/02/2008, -3/+1Vista hasn't really been hit that hard. Thanks to Windows 98-XP the bar has been set so low. So anything below 9834589734586 known viruses is regarded as secure.
      • Hortnon, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3So name a virus outbreak that's hit Vista, castletech. I'm sure you can, you sound confident that it's so insecure!
    • lxcid, on 12/02/2008, -12/+2* Point at mac user. HAH!

      I am happy to have my kaspersky running. Now you gotta go through what we have already gone through.

      And to think Microsoft is giving OneCare for free.
    • deadguysleeps, on 12/02/2008, -9/+4not! but it requires substantial effort to install the virus yourself
    • Spuy767, on 12/02/2008, -5/+3To eliminate potential threats to PC's carried on cross platform media, i.e. thumb drives.
    • rpgmaker, on 12/02/2008, -9/+2I guess that just leaves us Linux left ;)
    • doshindude, on 12/02/2008, -9/+16get your elitist head out of your elitist ass. Macs are just as vulnerable, it's just that they have never been targeted as much because they weren't as popular as they are now.
      • FreckleEars, on 12/02/2008, -4/+6Exactly! Why would people create virus's, spyware, and adware, for something that most people do not use? Because it was not worth the time and money for the developer. Seeing now as it is becoming more popular, especially among students, there is a new market for causing harm to any Mac OS.
      • Kerrigore, on 12/02/2008, -2/+10While this has some truth to it, and it's certainly part of the reason, it's not the whole story. If it were just as easy to build a virus for Mac OS X as Windows XP, don't you think even a few virus makers might decide to try to target a millions-strong market of users, most of whom aren't running any kind of serious protection, and who are wealthy enough to afford Macs? There are no Mac OS X viruses, only browser and self-installed trojans, and in terms of those in the wild, your chances of getting one are virtually nil anyways. I'm not saying Macs are immune. Far from it. Nothing is immune from compromise by a 3rd party application, poor security practices on the part of the user (installing trojans, etc.), lack of appropriate security measures like a firewall, and so on. And of course there will be holes in the OS itself from time to time, though it remains to be seen how many and how serious they are in terms of consequences.

        My point simply is, that Mac OS X is more secure by design than Windows XP (which is what most Windows users are still running last I checked). Compared to Vista it's a lot closer, since Vista implemented a lot of the security features and measures already present in Mac OS X and other *nix OS's. But last I checked even Microsoft was only claiming that Vista was "60% more secure" against viruses and malware. Is that simply because of marketshare? Right now should be an interesting test case, since Vista and Mac OS X have a lot more similar market shares than XP and Mac OS X do.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/02/2008, -1/+6That's simply not true. As other's have already pointed out, OS9 and earlier had plenty of virii, and at the time, the Mac user base was even smaller.

        It's true that OSX has a SMALLER user base than Windows, but it's still huge market.

        The difference is simply in how the operating systems are engineered. It *is* easier to exploit Windows. Period.

        That does not mean OSX is immune. I just means it's a lot more difficult to write a virus that actually attacks it.
      • insllvn, on 12/02/2008, -1/+1I would like to go ahead and tackle this particular myth with an analogy I hope proves even more insulting and divisive than the fanboy war already taking place.

        AHEM. Macintosh computers are like early European settlers on the American continent. They, like Mac OS X built on a hardened BSD derivative designed for multiuser, networked applications, have mighty immune systems from years of living amongst the many virus in filthy medieval Europe. They were immune to many of the viruses they brought to the new world. Windows PC's are like the American Indians, never built/inoculated against the harsh realities of a modern ubiquitous network/smallpox.

        I run GNU/Linux, and I run anti-virus, not only to be a respectful net-citizen, but also because it is only a matter of time or of a vulnerability noticed by the wrong people first. NO SYSTEM IS IMPERVIOUS.
    • jeeky, on 12/02/2008, -4/+1Dammit BSD...
    • rolf, on 12/02/2008, -4/+3It's about reducing attack vectors. But the default accounts on Apple are not root (just like Ubuntu) so it's much safer.

      Nothing is perfect though. However, the ***** of viruses by bundling a browser like conjoined twins to the OS isn't there (IE/Windows). There is also no major like Windows, which is a plus security wise, in my mind.
    • neio, on 12/02/2008, -7/+1Windows virii cause locked files on a Mac.
      Solution terminal - sudo rm /.*
    • masterandalf, on 12/02/2008, -5/+4Its not that macs are immune to viruses, its the fact that apple has such a low percentage of the market share virus developers dont really bother to make viruses for them, and many mac users i know are intelligent enough to know how to avoid most malicious software
      • joeyjojo, on 12/02/2008, -2/+2This is a myth as strong as the 'Macs cost more' one. Everyone seems to believe it, but few ever take the time to try and validate it and learn that, well, it's just a myth.
      • FyreGoddess, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3"and many mac users i know are intelligent enough to know how to avoid most malicious software"

        Really? All the Mac users I've ever encountered have fallen into one of two categories. 1) hardcore Mac fans who are computer-savvy and somewhat pretentious and 2) former Windows users who bought a Mac because "Windows is hard/confusing/too easily broken/too easily infected" (aka people who couldn't be arsed to learn the O/S).

        The first group, yeah, they probably are savvy enough to avoid most malicious software. The second group? No ***** way. They're a tragedy waiting to happen and if/when it does, they'll be the ones screaming the loudest about how Apple lied to them.

        (Whether it's true or not, you know it will be an accusation from that group 2)
    • DavidGX, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6Nothing is immune to viruses. Why would you think that?
    • specialK16, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Simpsons sure told you.
    • davidkeithjones, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Theres a worm in the apple.
    • jacobsam, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8Macs don't get 'viruses', they get 'social engineering attacks'.
    • dicer999, on 12/02/2008, -3/+1They just work.
    • ChngeGovernment, on 12/02/2008, -2/+3What the ***** is the internet?
    • revscat, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2They are immune to viruses.

      Prove me wrong.
    • dupajuda, on 12/02/2008, -2/+1there must be a new super aids that mutated only for macs
  • NicoNicoNico, on 12/02/2008, -3/+38I really wish they would recommend something that isn't proprietary as well. There are plenty of options out there for free that work just fine for a Mac.
    • oblique63, on 12/02/2008, -7/+120Apple encouraging the use of non-proprietary software?

      unpossible...
    • frieddonuts, on 12/02/2008, -4/+21Free software can still be proprietary.
      • dent42, on 12/02/2008, -2/+5Not if you mean free as in freedom. What you are referring to is called freeware.
      • elscorcho717, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4libre vs gratis FTW
    • Galaxylander, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6Because Microsoft and such do it differently?
      • Hortnon, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5You're right! I love my copy of Microsoft Antivirus!

        Oh wait

        (Remember, OneCare was wayyyyyy late to the game)
    • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4Avast makes a mac antivirus that is supposedly free for home users
    • xsecretfiles, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Any recommendations?
      I already use Norton for my home PC, but it's only for PC. I don't want to have to purchase the Mac version :(
      • robertlankford, on 12/02/2008, -12/+4Yes, I have a free anti-virus for my computer that works quite well.

        It's called Ubuntu. ;)
      • pyrates, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Don't use Norton. It's bloated and slows your system down. You can use avast. There is also Clamav for OS X at http://www.clamxav.com/ that you can use too. On windows I've always recommended nod32, it isn't free, but it has the lowest number of system resources when in use and is a good antivirus app IMHO.

        In fact one guy who was an advocate of Norton said he doesn't get slowed down like most people does because he turns off the real time protection and instead just uses the scanner once in a while, while not downloading anything from the net until he checked it. And therefore doesn't need to switch to nod32. But then my argument was why not switch and use nod32 where you don't have to compromise, which his reasoning changed to that he'd always used Norton and just didn't want to switch.
      • mrASSMAN, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1I hate Norton.
    • mogebier, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3But if they recommend something else, how will Job's afford to buy more turtlenecks??
    • PeanutCheeseBar, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1A freeware antivirus is fine too.
  • zephc, on 12/02/2008, -3/+48ClamXav is probably the only good, non-invasive virus scanner for the Mac - it's based on the same code as ClamAV, an open source av toolkit
    • york2600, on 12/02/2008, -2/+13Unless I'm missing something ClamXav has no active scanning making it almost worthless. The same users dumb enough to get a virus will NEVER manually scan their computer
      • ism70605, on 12/02/2008, -2/+2There were some nasty viruses that could essentially spread on their own around the year 2000. Who is to say this will not happen again?
      • Gudlyf, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7You can setup ClamXav Sentry to watch folders and it will kick-in and scan files as they are added/changed in those monitored folders. It will also quarantine as needed.

        http://www.clamxav.com/index.php?page=sentry
    • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -2/+5Clamav engine/definitions suck
    • reformation, on 12/02/2008, -4/+2You can set up folder sentry to monitor your download folder - so long as you only ever download to that same folder you effectively have an 'active' scanner.
      • Matri, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5Yes, let's forget all about the browser cache, and the fact that each plug-in can be configured to use their own temporary directories.
      • reformation, on 12/02/2008, -2/+1Of course but its a decent work around. Remember there are still no actual OS X virus so arguably even this is unnecessary, however it at least allows you to verify that anything you download is not infected.
    • cave, on 12/02/2008, -4/+10ClamXav sounds like an STD you get after sleeping with a puerto rican.
  • Holocaust, on 12/02/2008, -4/+22no avast? http://www.avast.com/eng/buy-avast-antivirus-mac-e ...
  • sgtcaboose, on 12/02/2008, -135/+6Digg up if you use AV on your Mac/PC
    Down if you don't.
    • Kwinti, on 12/02/2008, -7/+48I'll digg whatever I want. For you, sir, it is down.
  • foolishwolf, on 12/02/2008, -3/+77Any recommendations for the best Mac antivirus? I dont want a ***** system hog like Norton or some *****. That bitch turned my old pc upside down.
    • zdiggler, on 12/02/2008, -0/+65And harder to remove that then a virus too!
    • MuffinPatrol, on 12/02/2008, -4/+4I use Clamwin

      there is probably better though I'm not that much of a tech guru.
      • TVarmy, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5I don't think Clamwin has any virus recovery tools, last I checked. Instead, it merely says if a virus is present and leaves it up to the user to remove it, while the website recommends reformatting your hard drive, a rather drastic approach IMO, especially if your backups are less than stellar (I use Time Machine, knock on wood).
    • gcnaddict, on 12/02/2008, -10/+9foolishwolf, your statement is ironic because the latest version of Norton AV (at least the one in Norton Internet Security 2009) uses next to no CPU on Windows even during real-time scans as well as using less than 10MB ram when the UI is open. It also took no reboots to install... which is a first for a norton AV product (if not for any recent AV at all).

      I'm not sure if Norton for Mac was rewritten as well. I just know that the Windows engine is, as of 2009, damned amazing.
      • foolishwolf, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8It's possible Norton has improved, but all I know is when I've asked people about it, they tell me to stay away and I have the personal experience to agree with them.
      • Hortnon, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4I don't think that's possible - Because in the end, it's still attempting to read every file on a PC, of which there are hundreds of thousands. And I/O is expensive, especially with many small files. Even if you have low CPU usage, it's entirely possible that a system is bogged down anyway (waits, etc).

        The ONLY way it could possibly do it in a very non-intrusive way is slow down the process to a snail's pace where it's only reading a couple files at a time.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4It's a resource hog but i used to like Norton Firewall because it allowed me to control which program had access to the Internet. So I could prevent many things from "phoning home".
      • JackHarkness, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3His statement isn't ironic, the new version of Norton AV is !
      • gnixon70, on 12/02/2008, -6/+5xp antivirus 2009 turns Norton, mcafee, and just about everyone else into their little bitch. more then once I've seen the "your computer is infected, download av xp 2009 or whatever it calls itself now right next to a fully licensed and up to date Norton 360. kinda funny actually. Imo Norton = fail
      • kronix2, on 12/02/2008, -0/+11I'm going to assume gnixon70 was being sarcastic.

        "XP Antivirus 2009" aka "Windows Antivirus 2009" is a famous piece of malware which cons people into thinking they have viruses, in order to scare them into paying for their bogus product. It's a scam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XP_Antivirus
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2Norton for Mac sucks to a ridiculous degree and usually causes more problems than it will ever fix. Norton anything on Mac has been that way for about a decade now. I work as a Mac tech, and anytime I find Norton AV on someone's system I tell them to get rid of it and go for another antivirus like Intego if they feel that they need it.
      • Kerrigore, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2For everyone burying gcnaddict's comment: This is anecdotal, but from what I've heard from PC technicians and customers, Norton 2009 really is a massive improvement over all previous versions in terms of usability, resource usage, and so on. Personally I still recommend Kapersky for tech-savvy users and BitDefender for not-so-tech-savvy users.

        For Mac, I'd stay far away from anything Symantec does, if not because of how bad their software is, then because they are behind a large portion of the fear-mongering that goes on about viruses for mac, and I don't believe in rewarding that kind of behaviour.
    • york2600, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5iAntivirus. Only looks for Mac viruses and trojans. Active scanning. Very lightweight
    • ChrisLondon, on 12/02/2008, -4/+27The madness of it. I decided to go to the McAfee online store to check the price of the downloadable anti-virus software for the MAC. I got the following message:

      Your current browser is not supported.

      To download and install McAfee software, your computer must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or later.
      To upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer, visit the Microsoft Web site at: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads.

      Check it yourself:

      http://www.mcafee.com/us/small/free_scan/en_us/Not ...
      • tomis, on 12/02/2008, -1/+15Well that strikes one company off the list.
      • cawpin, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3No it doesn't. i just went their site and it works just fine in OS X/Firefox 3.
      • DarkShroud, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3http://macscan.securemac.com/
      • Kerrigore, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1I have no problem accessing their online store using Safari for Mac 3.1 as my User Agent.
      • ChrisLondon, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Cawpin and Kerrigore.

        I have no problem accessing their online store either. Did you actually read my comment? Accessing is not the problem, downloading is the problem.
    • eyefork2, on 12/02/2008, -0/+15Whether you're a PC or a Mac user, I think we can all come together and hate Norton equally.
  • borez, on 12/02/2008, -42/+49As a Mac tech of some 15 years ( as well as other things) I have in me own career only ever seen one virus on an Apple computer and, to be honest, it wasn't even worth dealing with.
    • skeletorcares, on 12/02/2008, -22/+73As a Mac tech, sitting jobless in my basement, for the past 15 years...
      • waluigi14, on 12/02/2008, -4/+9I think you mean "as a Digg user"
      • transform100, on 12/02/2008, -0/+17You would be surprised how many people can't figure out how to make a folder in mail...
      • Kirsha, on 12/02/2008, -14/+14Jobless? Macs break down all the time!
      • jjpertusch, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7@transform100 im actually not surprised by that at all
      • ksgant, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Honestly, after using computers since 1979 I've never seen a virus on any computer other than one time on a Mac.

        This was in the days of System 8, and it was a nasty little virus that spread itself through Syquest disks around the various printing service bureaus at the time. That's the only time I've ever seen a virus.
      • joeyjojo, on 12/02/2008, -2/+1...hanging out with the Maytag Repairman...
    • PolkStreet, on 12/02/2008, -17/+8You might as well say "as a person who's been on the planet for some 15 years" because there really is no such thing as "Mac Techs". It doesn't really take a tech to change out hard drives and RAM.
      • jtbandes, on 12/02/2008, -7/+3NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
        NSDiggUser *polkStreet = [[NSDiggUser self] previousSibling];
        [[[polkStreet posts] objectAtIndex:[[polkStreet posts] count]] bury];
        [pool release];
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 12/02/2008, -3/+3As a "Mac Tech" myself, I'd like to say go ***** yourself, you ignorant toolbag. Just because the customer wont generally swap a motherboard in a Mac doesn't mean they don't get replaced by the tech, *****.
    • djdavetrouble, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6Employed, non basement Mactech for 10 years. We see word macro viruses, which are mostly harmless, but are annoying and require cleaning. One of them keeps asking if you have thanked vishnu or something. In the OS9 days, someone brought sevendust into the graphics studio on a cd rom. SevendustG attached itself to every executable and would delete all non application files when executed on the 6th between 6 and 7 pm. The other variant (I think F) would delete all application files.

      As an attack platform, crackers love to have rooted *nix boxes.

      We have been forced to use virex at my enterprise, which causes more problems than it solves, including:
      slowing file copies, crippling lotus notes, causing notable type lag in several apps.
      • danieldrehmer, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Dugg for the "mostly harmless"
      • asskicker32, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4"lotus notes"

        Well there's your problem...
      • supaklaw, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1LOL "crippling" mac lotus notes. It's already in a wheelchair, you just are trying to drive it through mud.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3The only one I've heard of was the little worm that shipped on a Macaddict CD in the OS 9 days. I don't think it even did anything, either. Whenever I see Norton on a customer's Mac, I tell them to get rid of it as it's a bloated, problem-causing piece of crap. They should use something else if they feel they need antivirus, like Intego.
    • unitedatheism, on 12/02/2008, -11/+5As a Linux user for 10+ years: what is a computer virus?
    • Tbyrd073, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7Lotus Notes is a piece of ***** anyways.
  • bequity, on 12/02/2008, -11/+2This is somewhat old news from last week. Originally reported on November 25:

    Apple Officially Recommends Antivirus Software
    http://switchtoamac.com/site/apple-officially-reco ...

    Apple has issued a support article titled 'Mac OS: Antivirus utilities' in which they recommend the use of antivirus software on Mac OS. Here's what Apple states:

    "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult."
    • mrsteveman1, on 12/02/2008, -1/+1I think the support article is a few years old anyway.
  • EatChex89, on 12/02/2008, -11/+4I don't have antivirus on my mac, but after it comes out of the shop (I dropped it), I'll put a copy on it just for my own security.
    • partysan, on 12/02/2008, -4/+22Maybe you should invest in a pair of non-slip gloves instead
      • TVarmy, on 12/02/2008, -9/+1My friend accidentally some non-slip gloves. It was dangerous, and he was really hurt.
      • Gravity13, on 12/02/2008, -2/+7My friend accidentally his comment.
      • coyote1284, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2***** you, two of my friends were killed by non-slip gloves.
  • CptnEvilStomper, on 12/02/2008, -9/+162I hate how the word "virus" is used so loosely. A virus copies itself to your hard drive without your knowledge, executes malicious code, and then usually tries to infect other computers. I'm sure one day someone will write a true virus for OS X, but that's not the main issue here. The issue is that people have become so trusting of OS X that they think no malicious code exists that can affect it. They put their user name and password in and install things without really knowing what they're installing, which is why we all had to endure the flood of stories about the dumbass people who installed a video codec from a porn site and then were surprised when they found out it wasn't legit.

    At this point any anti-virus software you install will have a few hundred thousand Windows viruses (if it checks for those) and the few known Trojans for OS X (DNSChanger, Lamzev, etc.). You have to actually install these Trojans, though, or give someone physical access to your machine, along with your password. This is really just to cover Apple's ass in case somebody comes along with a lawsuit becomes they thought "virus" meant "all malicious code" and they installed one of those Trojans.

    If you want to keep from getting a virus, just be smart. Turn off the "open safe files automatically" option if you use Safari. Install WinSwitch, set up a keyboard shortcut for locking your machine, and lock it whenever you leave your computer for any extended period of time. Set a firmware password, disable automatic login, and turn the firewall on. Keep up with security updates through Software Update. An AV application is just overkill and will only suck up system resources unnecessarily.
    • jambla, on 12/02/2008, -11/+2Umm, yeah what he said.
    • Murdats, on 12/02/2008, -12/+3what your suggesting is overkill and takes up time and effort unnecessarily.

      just don't be stupid and you will be fine, I have yet to see a windows virus that installs itself without at least having to run something first and if you want extra security your choices are set up those hurdles you mention or have something running in the background on a machine that is for most people overkill already
    • zdiggler, on 12/02/2008, -2/+3So what you have to put in user/pass to install stuff.. what if somebody found a way around it?
      • MtheoryX, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6A way around authentication and authorization on a UNIX system...I'd love to see how that one was done.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 12/02/2008, -3/+1single user mode

        not sure if you can do it in OSX, but I know in Red Hat its as simple as rebooting and in grub adding a flag to the kernel you boot.

        You get no network access, but you get root access to that box and no password required.

        You can log in normally though download a file then reboot into single user mode and install that rootkit you just downloaded.
      • prodigitalson, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3YEah MAc has SU mode too. But to my knowledge youd have to have physical access tot he machine as i dont think there is a switch you can add to shutdown command to do it. It could be hidden in a plist somewhere im not sure, but even then you would need sudo or root access to edit that plist or issue the command with that switch. At which point such SU is moot because you already have sudo access.
      • zdiggler, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1Well.. You're not suppose to be able to do it.
        That's why we have hackers :)
    • Microfoot, on 12/02/2008, -5/+0I installed ClamXav and iAntiVirus... Any chance I just introduced some spyware and such to my iMac?
    • damack, on 12/02/2008, -3/+4Thank you sir few people that comment on these type of subjects have anything useful to say.

      It's mind boggling why Apple are encouraging people to use anti virus software maybe they've discovered a flaw or because their market share is increasing they expect more attention from hackers?

      With the current climate though you really wouldn't require an anti virus if you got a virus you can block it out from having an effect on your computer by simply telling Mac OSX to keep any alterations out of the "core" of the OS effectively disallowing viruses to change the fundamentals of OSX.

      Even without that stipulation though the so called "viruses" that infect the system require a heavy amount of user interaction and are actually quite difficult to up pick up not to mention their quite rare since most hackers target Windows since it has the significantly bigger market share.

      This whole Apple recommending anti virus is really suspect in the current climate there really is no use for AV on Mac OSX their probably hiding something from users.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/02/2008, -6/+3A virus is any intentionally malicious code. They don't have to be primarily focused on copying themselves (the worst ones do because they spread).

      A "Worm" is a virus that tries to infect other computers by way of networks. A "trojan horse" will run in the background and send information back to the maker or even allow remote access to the computer. A "joke program" is a program pretending to be what you want, but is something entirely different. "Adware" spams you with advertisements, usually by opening your web browser to ad pages or redirecting your traffic. "Spyware" records your activity for any number of purposes. A filesystem virus will run producing some evil effect and may even copy itself to certain areas of the hard drive, or into/onto different programs.

      Almost all of these actually spread by the user accepting them without knowing they're viruses. A few are worms that exploit networking vulnerabilities. In Windows if you have administrator access then they get free reign over the PC, if you have a limited account then almost all of them don't.

      These days memory is protected, and it's all too easy to setup accounts that can't modify system files.
      • Angostura, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8"A virus is any intentionally malicious code. "

        No, that would be Malware.

        "A "Worm" is a virus that tries to infect other computers by way of networks."

        No. That would be a self-propagating standalone program that propagates via networks.

        "A "trojan horse" will run in the background and send information back to the maker or even allow remote access to the computer."

        No. That would be a piece of malware that masquerades as a piece of legitimately useful software.

        A virus is a piece of malware that itegrates itself into the code of another legitimate piece of software on the system.

        Other than that, your other definitions are OK.

        I hope that's of some use.


      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2@Angostura RE: "A virus is any intentionally malicious code. "
        -- No, that would be Malware "

        Thanks for correcting MacSuxWindozSux.

        @MacSuxWindozSux, maybe you should try doing a bit of research instead of posting up ***** you just made up.


      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/02/2008, -1/+1I neglected to mention that the code is not supposed to be there for the normal legitimate operation of the software, which would mean a Trojan Horse isn't merely malware.

        Why are you guys so angry?
    • Yazilliclick, on 12/02/2008, -2/+8So basically what you're saying as that a mac is the same as a windows machine? Because by far the majority of any security problems or virus infections on these are due to people doing stupid things like running attachments that they don't know what they are, installing things from web pages, not updating their machine etc... If your machine is up to date and you exercise common sense then the odds you'll be infected are very very low indeed.
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5@Yazilliclick RE: " So basically what you're saying as that a mac is the same as a windows machine? "

        Not really, considering the grand total of Mac OSX viruses in the wild are : ZERO.

        As per maverick's comments :
        " Before people start talking about viruses on a Mac I think it's important for somebody to explain what a virus actually is.

        ... a computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without permission or knowledge of the user.

        There are different types of malware out there for OS X, but to the best of my knowledge it all uses some type of social engineering to get a user to actually type in their password and install it.

        That's not a virus, because viruses install and spread themselves without any sort of authentication.

        ... there's still not one Mac OS X virus. "
      • CptnEvilStomper, on 12/02/2008, -2/+6Not really, no. With Windows you can get infected with various kinds of malware by downloading a file, opening an email attachment, reading an email in Outlook, visiting the wrong website, installing a Firefox extension, opening a Word document, plugging in a new flash drive or mp3 player that shipped with malware on it... the list goes on. Microsoft's main problem is that they make no effort whatsoever to separate the OS and the user.

        Admin users are basically given the Windows equivalent of root privileges, and users aren't asked to approve any system-wide changes. If code wants to execute itself, it doesn't have to let you know. There are limited users in Windows, but they can still execute code that has the ability to make system-wide changes and install system files, so even limited users can cause serious damage. In UNIX-based OS's like OS X and Linux you have to enter a user name and password to install anything, admins aren't given root privileges, and standard users can only change files and install apps within their own user directory.

        If you get a Windows virus that you can't remove with AV software (which isn't all that hard to do), the only easy way to get rid of it is to wipe the hard drive and re-install the OS. In OS X, you just make one admin account and a bunch of standard users, and if one of the standard users manages to make their account unusable, you just delete the user and their home folder, then create a new user. They lose all their user-specific apps and personal files, but the OS and all system files stay intact, and your personal files aren't lost because of something stupid someone else did. The only way they can cripple the entire system is if you give them the admin password.

        This is where the user stupidity issue comes into play. If the admin(s) don't know what's safe to install and what isn't, and put their password in and install a Trojan or something, then they can easily screw up their entire system. There's not much you can do for these people besides attempt to educate them. That's really my point, though - the main security threat to OS X is the user. You can't ruin your system by opening an email or plugging in a digital camera, and you don't have to worrying about keyloggers or spyware installing itself without your knowledge.
      • IntruderII, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2@CptnEvilStomper

        You can't say visiting websites isn't ever dangerous on a Mac. The pwn2own contest wasn't even that long ago, and they compromised a Mac using a Flash exploit.
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1@ IntruderII RE: " You can't say visiting websites isn't ever dangerous on a Mac. The pwn2own contest wasn't even that long ago, and they compromised a Mac using a Flash exploit. "


        Wow... You obviously heard that 2nd hand, otherwise you would also have known that the Mac was exploited on DAY TWO, only AFTER after the rules were relaxed to allow the DIRECT CONNECTION of a cable between his laptop and the Mac.
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2@ CptnEvilStomper RE: " ... with Windows you can get infected with various kinds of malware by downloading a file, opening an email attachment, reading an email in Outlook, visiting the wrong website, installing a Firefox extension, opening a Word document, plugging in a new flash drive or mp3 player that shipped with malware on it... the list goes on. Microsoft's main problem is that they make no effort whatsoever to separate the OS and the user.

        Admin users are basically given the Windows equivalent of root privileges, and users aren't asked to approve any system-wide changes. If code wants to execute itself, it doesn't have to let you know. There are limited users in Windows, but they can still execute code that has the ability to make system-wide changes and install system files, so even limited users can cause serious damage. In UNIX-based OS's like OS X and Linux you have to enter a user name and password to install anything, admins aren't given root privileges, and standard users can only change files and install apps within their own user directory.

        If you get a Windows virus that you can't remove with AV software (which isn't all that hard to do), the only easy way to get rid of it is to wipe the hard drive and re-install the OS. In OS X, you just make one admin account and a bunch of standard users, and if one of the standard users manages to make their account unusable, you just delete the user and their home folder, then create a new user. They lose all their user-specific apps and personal files, but the OS and all system files stay intact, and your personal files aren't lost because of something stupid someone else did. The only way they can cripple the entire system is if you give them the admin password.

        This is where the user stupidity issue comes into play. If the admin(s) don't know what's safe to install and what isn't, and put their password in and install a Trojan or something, then they can easily screw up their entire system. There's not much you can do for these people besides attempt to educate them.


        That's really my point, though - the main security threat to OS X is the user. You can't ruin your system by opening an email or plugging in a digital camera, and you don't have to worrying about keyloggers or spyware installing itself without your knowledge.
    • dexx001, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2good advice mate...
    • tenchiws, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2What you're suggesting sounds a lot like UAC in Vista. Hmmm.
      • gravyboy, on 12/02/2008, -3/+1Except without giving you a blinding screen flickering itself into darkness.
      • rowjimmy, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4and it's great that windows finally hopped aboard the users, groups, and permissions bus.
    • greenjelly01, on 12/02/2008, -1/+0you need to install software to be able to lock your mac?
      • MtheoryX, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1wat
      • CptnEvilStomper, on 12/07/2008, -0/+1OS X has fast user switching but there's no global keyboard shortcut to take you to the login screen. I have WinSwitch set up so I can press Command-Shift-Option-L to go to the login screen, instead of having to click my username in the menu bar and then click "Login Window." I'm addicted to keyboard shortcuts, though; it's probably unnecessary for most people.
  • Moegopher, on 12/02/2008, -24/+8Apple kind of dug themselves into a whole. This was bound to happen some day, and now that it has it will only hurt them more because of their reputation of being virusless.
    • jayhawk, on 12/02/2008, -7/+5"now that it has . . ."

      actually, it hasn't. just because they're recommending anti-virus protection doesn't mean that there is anything out there to protect against yet.
      • DarkShroud, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Actually there are Mac Trojans in the wild. They just keep themselves very well hidden on the systems they infect.
    • Innagadadavida, on 12/02/2008, -1/+18As opposed to digging themselves into a half?
    • ghall, on 12/02/2008, -4/+6"Apple kind of dug themselves into a whole."

      As opposed to what? A half?
    • Tahiri, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2Yes it does
    • FreckleEars, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Buried for 'whole' and not 'hole'.
  • ohhsoocutee, on 12/02/2008, -15/+8lol
  • 2h3px, on 12/02/2008, -9/+35This is just PR for Apple's new release, Pesticide.
    • booyahbitch, on 12/02/2008, -0/+11That is iPesticide you insensitive clod!!!
    • jraymilton, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1No, no, Alar! (I know, I'm dating myself with the ancient reference!)
  • zaldoe, on 12/02/2008, -13/+6How good is iAntivirus?
  • Soihavenoidea, on 12/02/2008, -6/+17Vista with Nod32 has been near invincible for me these days.
    OSX, invincible since I've had it, if Nod32 had an equivalent on the OSX I would buy it in a heartbeat.
    • transform100, on 12/02/2008, -0/+9I got a Backdoor from a USB stick and nod32 didn't do a thing about it (yes I know it's my fault)
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -4/+14No, it's NOT your fault. Any OS that allows an "auto install" without ANY user intervention is a DEFECTIVE OS.
      • DarkShroud, on 12/02/2008, -4/+5Hmm, Vista blocks auto installs with this thing called UAC. In the last 2 years my sister has not had a single virus or malware installs since I upgraded her to Vista with all the security enabled.
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1@ DarkShroud RE: " Hmm, Vista blocks auto installs with this thing called UAC. "

        Hmmm, it looks like UAC doesn't work too well, since we've had to format quite a few Vista laptops in the last few months.

        And, if UAC really DID WORK, then why does Vista have a pop up that cautions you with " WARNING : Vista has detected that you are currently not running any Anti Virus software "

        If Vista is so secure, then WHY does Vista REQUIRE some form of anti virus to be running AT ALL TIMES ?
  • bbdream8, on 12/02/2008, -18/+12? Apple encourage anti virus? I thought they said that there is no such thing as virus in Mac OS?
    • kelly, on 12/02/2008, -4/+9They never said that however there currently is no viruses for OSX
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2Correct. The sum total of current Mac OSX viruses in the wild : ZERO.
  • rubaaan, on 12/02/2008, -20/+52time to start pulling some 'im a mac' ads eh?
    • Tahiri, on 12/02/2008, -12/+33They were all lies to begin with
    • tomis, on 12/02/2008, -6/+13There still aren't any mac viruses. No, a trojan is not a virus.
      • kirado4, on 12/02/2008, -13/+3yes it is.. it is a sub type of virus
      • Angostura, on 12/02/2008, -1/+14kirado4

        No. A trojan is a piece of software that pretends to be a useful app.

        A virus is a piece of software which attaches itself to other software.
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -2/+6@Angostura RE: " kirado4

        No. A trojan is a piece of software that pretends to be a useful app.

        A virus is a piece of software which attaches itself to other software. "


        Thanks for being so polite to kirado4, even though he posts as if he actually knows what he is talking about.


      • liquidmetalband, on 12/02/2008, -6/+4I don't care if you call it a "virus" or not. It still ***** up your computer.
      • unitedatheism, on 12/02/2008, -4/+5With the kind of user's they've got, who needs a virus?
        I would rather be Windows with people who have no clue on technology than having the cockiest users who think they're the underground unappreciated scholars of IT even though they know hell less than any average Joe Linux User and have a small fraction of all the fun Windows' users have.
        But hey, at least they've got a shiny whity fancy thingy!
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2@unitedatheism RE: " With the kind of user's they've got, who needs a virus? "

        I would rather be Windows with people who have no clue on technology than having the cockiest users who think they're the underground unappreciated scholars of IT even though they know hell less than any average Joe Linux User ... "


        That's an interesting generalisation that you made there...

        Most of the people I talk to have been in IT for years. In fact, I have been in IT since the days when Microsoft bought QDOS and then sold it to IBM as " MS DOS ".

        In fact, quite a few developers I know have recently switched to either a Linux based OS (if they are using their old PC hardware), or have bought MacBooks (since OSX is a *nix based OS).

        I was developing apps for DOS & Windows since the DOS 6 and Windows 3.1 days.

        Over a year ago, I bought myself a MacBook, and the ONLY thing that I berate myself over is that I SHOULD HAVE DONE IT YEARS AGO.

        OSX is a vastly superior OS to Vista.
    • geoken, on 12/02/2008, -7/+4I hope your petty semantic arguments make you feel better when your user folder gets deleted.

      It's like you guys care less about the reality of the situation (namely, that your data can be compromised/deleted/stolen) and more about preserving one of your main "OS X is teh best!1" talking points.
      • DocCochran, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4The point is that viruses can easily spread without the user being a ***** moron, while trojans tend to require some degree of idiocy. You have to download and install the suspicious file. Viruses have no problem infecting even with passive users.

        Not to mention the virus spreads to other computers, where the trojan stays on your machine.

      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2@geoken RE: " I hope your petty semantic arguments make you feel better when your user folder gets deleted. "

        *sigh* it's NOT a semantic argument... I don't think you understand WHY it's so important to understand what a virus is.

        If you think "everything that can stuff up my PC" is a virus, then you are an idiot.

        If you think that typing " Format C: " is a virus then you are an idiot.

        The grand total of OSX viruses that exist out there is : ZERO.
      • mrBitch, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1@ DocCochran RE: " ... viruses can easily spread without the user being a ***** moron, while trojans tend to require some degree of idiocy.

        [With Trojans] you have to download and install the suspicious file.
        Viruses have no problem infecting even with passive users.

        ... virus spreads to other computers, where the trojan stays on your machine. "


        Those are all good points, and is quite a good little summary of the differences between a " trojan " and a " virus ", and is EXACTLY why it's important to understand the differences between the two.
  • scoottie, on 12/02/2008, -8/+9All OS's have there flaws that can be exploited by Viruses/Malware/Etc its just do people want to write code to attack an OS that has a small market share or a big market share and get more bang for your buck
    • tomis, on 12/02/2008, -1/+6their / there / they're

      Please. Know them. Use them.
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -4/+3@tomis, thank you, so many get that wrong.

        @scootie RE: " All OS's have there flaws that can be exploited by Viruses/Malware/Etc "

        Not quite correct. The sum total of Mac OSX viruses in the wild are : ZERO.

        So, in order to make your statement correct, you should have said :

        " All Microsoft sourced OS's have there flaws that can be exploited by Viruses / Malware / Etc "
      • MacParrot, on 12/02/2008, -2/+2Damn that pesky there/they're/their virus. Is their no end of trouble from they're wrath?
      • scoottie, on 12/02/2008, -2/+1Like you have never made a simple mistake
      • scoottie, on 12/02/2008, -3/+1@Bitch

        really?

        http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Ma ...
      • MacParrot, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4Sorry scoottie. While those are certainly serious vunerabilities, they really aren't viruses. In each case the user has to purposely download the worm and in some cases bypass basic built-in security (as in entering the admin password). None of them arbitrarily execute by going to an infected website or by opening an email as was the case for many Windows-based viri before Microsoft tightened up their security.

        Eventually someone will figure out a way to infect a recent OS X system and it only makes sense for Mac users to protect themselves with anti-viral software.
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2@scoottie RE: " @Bitch really? "

        Yes, REALLY. As MacParrot said :

        " Sorry scoottie. While those are certainly serious vunerabilities, they really aren't viruses.

        In each case the user has to purposely download the worm and in some cases bypass basic built-in security (as in entering the admin password).

        None of them arbitrarily execute by going to an infected website or by opening an email as was the case for many Windows-based viruses... "
  • batmanz, on 12/02/2008, -9/+4They probably got paid off by the companies that make Mac antivirus software.
  • chkdg8, on 12/02/2008, -13/+6Wait, WHAT?
  • celotil, on 12/02/2008, -3/+94I have ClamXav installed and set to automatically scan any archived files I open.

    Why?

    Because even if my Mac can't catch a Windows-based Virus, it can still act like a carrier if I pass on that file to a Windows-using friend.

    I used to run AV software on my old Linux-running machines as well.
    • identityxcrysis, on 12/02/2008, -1/+11I don't get why you'd be dugg down It's a great point and a great idea.
    • MattBD, on 12/02/2008, -0/+9That's true. If a Linux machine is being used as a file or mail server and is connected to Windows machines, it's usually a good idea to include AV so it can catch malware before it reaches the Windows machines.
    • manogamez, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5I never thought of it that way. I guess I'm very selfish when it comes to computing.
    • FredFredrickson, on 12/02/2008, -5/+4Mac users have Windows using friends?
      • MtheoryX, on 12/02/2008, -2/+2Some Mac users themselves are also Windows users.

        Drop the blatant fanboism from your life and you'll see everything just becomes more enjoyable.
      • FredFredrickson, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2I was just kidding, sheesh.
  • diggtochina, on 12/02/2008, -11/+28fan boys say it aint so
    • geodebug, on 12/02/2008, -16/+4It really aint (sic), if you read the article.

      A story with this flavor seems to pop up every other month on Digg. 'new mac virus, boogity boogity'. Macs are pretty secure and the system preferences makes it pretty simple to harden security further.

      If you don't download programs from untrustworthy sites you'll most likely be fine.
      • Yazilliclick, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8Guess what... if you keep your windows machine updated and don't run untrustworthy attachments or downloads then you'll most likely be fine also. That sure hasn't stopped the smack talk though.
      • Gareth321, on 12/02/2008, -6/+1*insert funny one-liner about the parallels of safe sex and safe browsing*
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -11/+2@Yazilliclick RE: " Guess what... if you keep your windows machine updated and don't run untrustworthy attachments or downloads then you'll most likely be fine also. "

        Not QUITE the same as being able to run on an OS that currently has a grand total of ZERO viruses in the wild....
      • geodebug, on 12/02/2008, -2/+3@Yazilliclick

        You're right, but I'm the one with the negative diggs for telling the truth that most of these mac/virus articles are kind of bogus.

        Any apple-related article seems to bring the insecure anti-mac trolls out of the woodwork. Lots of resentment I guess over those pc/mac ads.

        Quit your bitching windows-users. You're still winning in the market-share game and, as you tend to post endlessly, you have many more video game choices.

        Plus, if you ever sat back and thought about it, mac (and linux) competition (how ever small) helps windows too. You should be happy about the pc/mac ads because it appears that MS is listening.

        Oh well, there aren't enough bridges in the world for all the trolls on the internet.
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1@geodebug RE: " ... these mac/virus articles are kind of bogus.

        Any apple-related article seems to bring the insecure anti-mac trolls out of the woodwork.

        Quit your bitching windows-users.
        ... if you ever sat back and thought about it, mac (and linux) competition (how ever small) helps windows too.

        You should be happy about the pc/mac ads because it appears that MS is listening. "


        Very well said, +1 to you good sir.
  • wukillabee, on 12/02/2008, -18/+30i can run xp without any antivirus/trojan software, actually you have to be pretty dumb to run any of that crap

    -dont download .exe attachments
    -dont go to websites you dont know
    -use firefox + adblock plus

    how hard is that?
    • identityxcrysis, on 12/02/2008, -6/+41Sorry, there's a lot more too it than just that.

      If you don't go to websites that you don't know...your experience on the web must be pretty damn boring.
      Following that, how did you come across digg?
    • jwmann, on 12/02/2008, -11/+19Until you open that nice .jpg of that girl your friends was talking about and just delete after you seen it.
      But oh wait? Embedding a virus that installs automatically in the background as you open the picture? no that's impossible.
      Definitely not as simple as that.
      Not all Viruses pop up and say 'Hi' on your computer.
      If you don't have anti-virus, how do you know you don't have one?
      • bigsteve, on 12/02/2008, -7/+6He knows he doesn't have a virus because you'd only need a very elementary knowledge of Windows to know something is running background that shouldn't be.

        You can't "embed a virus in a JPG" without an actionable exploit in an image rendering library that's running with system privileges, or if you're mentally handicapped enough to doubleclick boobs.jpg.exe ...

        Don't spread FUD. Educate yourself and be a part of the solution.
      • unitedatheism, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6jwmann, by your reply I can tell that you're the kind of user who is victim of boobs.jpg.exe and such

        And also don't know how to check for programs starting up altogether with Windows

        Oh, and use that "delete_digg's_users_with_no_admin_credentials_asked_whatsoever.exe" exploit and delete my account, please.
        You may find easily on any major p2p network
    • transform100, on 12/02/2008, -8/+3Use firefox, noscript and sandboxie and when opening word docs and other things you have to have for work use a site that uses multi scanners such as virustotal or virusscan.jotti.org even then you aren't safe but pretty close.
    • vatech09, on 12/02/2008, -9/+14It is because of jerks like you that we have botnets and as a result, spam. I never felt secure on the internet on xp even with an antivirus. Vista (which rocks, btw!) is way more secure than xp and with a decent antivirus, it is very secure.
      • Yazilliclick, on 12/02/2008, -9/+2Uh a vast amount of spam actually results from exploited web servers, many of which are linux. Shut down a number of spammers pulling that ***** because stupid ass users would upload easily exploitable content to their sites.
      • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -2/+5@Yazilliclick RE: " Uh a vast amount of spam actually results from exploited web servers, many of which are linux. "

        Ok, now you just called yourself out as an idiot.

        Why are you posting comments on a subject you obviously know NOTHING about?
      • bigsteve, on 12/02/2008, -2/+4@ Yazilliclick: The Linux servers weren't "exploited," they merely were serving maliciously crafted files that exploit holes in browsers and other software on the visitor end.

        Yea, I "exploit" my Apache server to serve content all the time.
      • Yazilliclick, on 12/16/2008, -0/+1@ mrBitch

        No I'm giving insight on something you apparently know nothing about. Sure if you lock down a server properly it 'likely' wouldn't happen, I say likely because stupid users can typically find a way to make anything vulnerable and there's no getting rid of them. However a good portion of shared web hosting servers are not setup properly nor administered properly. This is because they are business setup by some people who know nothing about it and outsource all the technical stuff to budget shops who only do basic support. This is where I was working at the time, it wasn't our job to configure the servers, we had nothing to do with setting them up and we were not allowed to make decisions on anything major in their set up or what they ran.

        @bigsteve

        Wrong. The servers themselves were exploited to run third party scripts. It happened through apache/php via content uploaded by the users but it was not exploits to display anything on the visitor's end. They were based on running scripts to mass mail items through the server.
    • technetix, on 12/02/2008, -2/+7Exactly, most people are idiots and click on anything and everything. If your updates are all up to date, and you've got ad-block and some common sense, you're fine. Run Ad-Aware and Easy Cleaner once a week and there you go.
    • reformation, on 12/02/2008, -3/+7You also have know way of knowing that even a trusted website hasn't been compromised.
      • stotty, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7no way of knowing if a trusted website has been*
      • bigsteve, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1That'd be where some friendly Firefox plugins come into play. Websites or but rather the the scripts they run as part of ad syndication occasionally are manipulated by unscrupulous ad partners to deliver malicious content until the website owner wises up to the shinanigans. Adblock+, as well as NoScript and FlashBlock with some reasonable exceptions and the threat you so clumsily describe is effectively mitigated as well.
    • cknyan, on 12/02/2008, -3/+5Good time to pick up an anti-virus/ad-ware program and get a list of how much malware you've picked up.
    • DigDugDigger, on 12/02/2008, -1/+15...and don't use Limewire. Seriously, every PC I ever had to fix due to malware... that green little Limewire icon was on the desktop. They probably saw something like "SUPER SECRET ____ SEX TAPE.exe" and decided to download it. Or downloaded a movie that needed some special "codec" to play.
      • schroeder, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Best limewire virus I ever cleaned out was "Young_Jeezy's_Limewire_Accelerator.exe" Second place "Garage_Band_for_Windows.exe".
      • MtheoryX, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Well, with a filename like that, how could one resist?

        /sarc
    • bigsteve, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Please don't forget to add "a good hardware firewall" to that list. He's correct in saying that most infections nowadays are user-error related, but the Windows world does fall victim to another threat more often than any other modern OS, and that is the self-replicating worm. True, these are very few and far between (maybe 4 major ones in the past 5 years...) but there's actually one in the wild (Called 'Downad.a' by Trend, 'Conficker.a' by Microsoft and 'Downadup' by Symantec) now that's growing in strength. MS patched it in October, but in a testament to how far from 100% MS' patch penetration really is, the botnet the worm builds is nearing half a million strong.

      So I guess I'd add two things to your list. Firewall, and Windows Update.
    • rolf, on 12/02/2008, -1/+1There is more to it (if your firewall is not configured correctly, your xp can be infected within minutes without you doing a thing).

      Also, I recommend the Firefox extension WOT (web of trust). Going to websites you don't know is pretty limiting and not really the best safety model. This is better.
  • Masna, on 12/02/2008, -8/+1That McAffee guy is gonna be rich soon.
    • Masna, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Well damn. I didn't mean Macs will be loaded with viruses. I have one.

      Just saying because of paranoia...
  • kiensoy, on 12/02/2008, -5/+39I have never used an antivirus for Windows on my PC and I don't think I will ever need one for OSX on my PC either.
    • tgunner, on 12/02/2008, -1/+14Here here.
    • mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -2/+7@kiensoy RE: " I have never used an antivirus for Windows on my PC and I don't think I will ever need one for OSX on my PC either. "

      Your Windows PC is already a bot.
      • plague, on 12/02/2008, -4/+5Why? I don't use antivirus either on Vista. Most people are behind hardware firewalls these days. Just don't be stupid by going to shady sites on old versions of IE or running every .exe you see and you'll be fine.
      • MtheoryX, on 12/02/2008, -0/+5@plague:

        If you don't run antivirus, how do you know you aren't infected?

        /honestly curious here
      • mrBitch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3@ plague RE: " Why? I don't use antivirus either on Vista. Most people are behind hardware firewalls these days. "


        OMFG... you think a firewall prevents Windows from getting viruses and malware installed on your PC ??

        You REALLY need to install an Anti Virus on your Windows PC as SOON AS POSSIBLE.

        As I said... it's most probably already too late for you.

        Your Windows PC is already a bot.
    • ngaaih, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8don't use condoms either.

    • ultrafez, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2Was the "OSX on my PC" intentional, or accidental? Thumbs up if it was intentional, for recognising that a Mac is still a personal computer.
      • kiensoy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Merely intentional. I hate those "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ads since PC's are personal computers.
  • jesseber, on 12/02/2008, -10/+4NO WAI
  • ptFoe, on 12/02/2008, -10/+3***** lame, hopefully Ubuntu will never come to this
    • fr3nch, on 12/02/2008, -4/+10Don't worry Ubuntu will never come to anything.
      • TeamBaldwin, on 12/02/2008, -2/+8I'm a Ubuntu user and that still made me laugh
      • transform100, on 12/02/2008, -3/+2As a Ubuntu user I hope you are right we could do without the random idiots that freak out when a icon disappears.
  • Demos27, on 12/02/2008, -2/+7Oh snap! The world is going upside down!

    It's not something to really worry about right now. And I hate bogging down my computer with all the antivirus crap anyway.
  • identityxcrysis, on 12/02/2008, -14/+9Oh THANK you. Now I FINALLY have some form of support on my side against my computer illiterate friends that bought a Mac because of the 'deal', who say that they can't get viruses, because they don't understand how a damn virus works.
    • gimpsley, on 12/02/2008, -10/+7Bah, i'm sick of reading this inane conversation. Mostly perpetuated by Windows users who feel bad because their OS is *****.

      For the record OSX *is* still inherently more resistant to both remote virus attacks & trojans. It is clear to anyone who has a clue about security, it is infact a more secure operating system. (than XP & to a lesser extent Vista) There are many reasons for it, many quite subtle.

      For anyone who is interested: I am almost soley responsible for close to 800 OSX desktops, laptops and about 15 servers. (Also Windows boxen but i choose not to dwell on the unpleasent aspects of this job) Not one of those runs any anti-virus. In nearly 10 years of doing this job, I have had ~2-3 instances of "virus"... they were under OS8 & 9 and they were macro viruses for M$ Word.

      I watch the situation with interest, waiting for the first REAL in the WILD virus for OSX. I expect one day it will happen but it hasn't happened yet.
      • identityxcrysis, on 12/02/2008, -5/+4First of all, you can call my OS *****, but personally, I like it. I don't have any problems with it. Maybe it's just because I know HOW to work a computer, and HOW to take care of it, and I don't need a dumbed down super easy to use interface like OSX pushes on it's users, so they don't need to learn anything. But I'm digressing.
        If Windows was '*****' like you say, it wouldn't have such a huge market share, sorry. I'm not saying it's market share means it's the best, I'm just saying that if it were as bad as you make it sound, it wouldn't have as much market share as it does.

        And I never said that OSX ISN'T more resistant to virus attacks, as you make it sound like I did. I'm just making a point that it's possible, one that you actually 'prove' in your writing.

        Your responsibility for so many OSX machines means NOTHING that they're virus free, or that OSX can't get a virus.

        Point is, a virus, or any sort of malware can be written on any machine or any OS. OSX is less of a target at the moment.

        Study up.
      • bearcat8543, on 12/02/2008, -2/+1http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over- ...
      • spaceddaisy, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7@identityxcrysis

        I love it when the old "dumbed down super easy to use interface" is brought up.

        Seriously, what kind of objection can you have against having an easy-to-use operating system? It makes you feel not intellectual enough?

        Trust me I know how to work a computer too and I know how to take care of it, I have three OS's running at home and I absolutely love OS X because it is so easy and quick to get things done. Yeah I can also open a console and mess around with a lot more difficult stuff, but at the end of the day it's great to be able to do some simple tasks quickly and easily.
      • reformation, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3