Do we need an antivirus on OS X?

[simonsi]

I just see this as chicken-and-egg, there are no Mac viruses so no virus scanner knows what to look for. Existing suspiscious behaviours can be picked up by sensible OS-level alerts etc.

But it needs a virus to be created for the scanners to be able to do anything meaningful.

 

[drew627]

No.

 

[Abba1]

It's not just a matter of telling a Windows user that it's their problem.

Running anti-virus on your Mac to protect Windows users from malware is like covering your mouth when you cough in front of the kids, then sending them out without flu shots to a school where a flu epidemic is spreading like wildfire. Great! They might not catch anything from you, but you've left them vulnerable to the greater risk. It's wiser to make sure they have flu shots, so they're protected from infection, whether it be from you or from other people.

If you really want to help your Windows friends, encourage them to get their own anti-virus protection installed, or offer to install it for them.

The other problem with such apps is that many users are lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that if they have antivirus installed, they're fully protected. Such is not the case, since detection rates are less than complete.

There's no software substitute for a well-informed, prudent user.

I didn't say "never", but people have been claiming "it's only a matter of time" for 12+ years and it hasn't happened yet. Part of being informed is to stay abreast of news that could affect you. If an OS X virus is ever introduced in the wild, no antivirus app would protect you because it wouldn't detect it at first, not knowing what to look for. There would be plenty of news about such an event, however, enabling users to be on guard to take appropriate action.

Re: "a false sense of security". Partial security is better than no security! And, some of the Anti-Viri are quite good and even outstanding, and are constantly working to find fixes for known threats as well as for predicated ones. But, anyone who feels totally secure is a true innocent. In a world in which cyber-crime is a daily threat, it is hard to believe that anyone still feels totally secure. Rather, we must think of this as a dangerous world in which we have to be on our guard even with a great bodyguard protecting us.

 

[Queen6]

Same question, same rhetoric;

As someone who relies on their Mac`s for a living absolutely yes...

There are several reasons to run antivirus/malware detection on OS X especially if you are dealing with a mixed environment passing on malicious code, even inadvertently will do you no favours in the professional world, let alone family and friends. What does not hurt OS X may bring a Windows to it`s knees. By far the vast majority of companies that you may potentially work with, or interact with will require a level of antivirus protection, regardless of platform.

You do need to be careful on the choice of application; perviously I ran ClamXav as the app is extremely light and only looks in realtime at what you specify, it`s free, equally time has moved on and ClamXav has remained rather static. I now use Avast. Same scenario no impact to performance with a greater scope of realtime protection. Does anyone seriously still believe that running Avast or ClamXav on todays modern hardware impacts performance! The paid for packages I agree are unnecessary on OS X, as the free alternatives are more than good enough presently.

Avast or ClamXav will have no impact on a modern Intel based Mac. To have a free, low headroom, accurate scanner and not utilise it, is somewhat stubborn at best. The retorts of AV being a resource hog, boils down to one thing, research; Avast or ClamXav will not bog your system down. If it does your system has other inconsistencies that need addressing, or your hardware is so old it`s well and truly time to upgrade. On my Early 2008 2.4 MBP ClamXav is simply invisible, there is absolutely no degradation of performance, as for the Late 2011 i7 2.4 MBP, Mid 2012 Retina & new 2.8 13" Retina it`s completely transparent, as is Avast, same applies to the rest of the Mac`s in the household.

I have literally decades of work on my systems, and have no intention of losing any data, or suffer downtime. Antivirus is but one tool in a multilayered safety net. Lets face it, if and when OS X is compromised it will spread like wildfire as many fundamentally believe that OS X is invulnerable, then it will all be done, bar the shouting. I am not entirely sure posts that overly reinforce this false sense of security are helpful to the average user, even Apple recognise the threat, however the updates are too slow to be considered a truly preventative measure. As of OS X 10.6 your Mac is running anti malware like it or not courtesy of Apple. Virus/Malware gains traction by exploiting vulnerabilities on unprotected systems. I don't believe for one second that any antivirus/malware detection application is the single security solution for OS X, it is however one of several effective barriers.

I have never had a positive hit in all the years I have run ClamXav and now Avast equally OS X is gaining ever more traction and it`s simply a matter of time before someone figures it out, thinking otherwise is simply naive. Avast and ClamXav cost me nothing monetarily, nor time in productivity. This is a safety net that costs little more than a few minutes of your time period.

There are many compelling reasons to run Avast, ClamXav or similar, and few if any not too. Personal choices aside I fundamentally believe that suggesting that OS X is 100% safe to all and does not need such tools is very much a step in the wrong direction; not all are technically minded, neither do all users who may have access to systems follow safe computing rules and guidelines. The vast majority simply point and click to get to where or what they want, Avast or ClamXav simply serves as a barrier to protect those that are unaware, and some cases unconcerned, ultimately such safeguards protect the community as a whole.

Install, don’t install it`s down to you...

 

[ABC5S]

I'm using the following, and feel pretty safe..

1. Hardware Firewall using Apples AirPort Extreme

2. Using OS X Software Firewall

3. ClamXav

4. FileVault turned ON

5. Downloads from Apple App Store & Identified Developers only

 

[pennbank]

I use Sophos free for mac
http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-mac-home-edition.aspx

Have always used it and suffer no reduction in speed etc.

 

[grahamperrin]

… no reduction in speed etc.

When I last checked, the relatively speedy defaults were not sufficiently thorough. Saner defaults may be more taxing on the Mac.

Have you ever found that very soon after you log on to OS X, everything become unusable? Typically: the pointer moves, in response to the mouse and/or trackpad, but everything else is unresponsive … it's necessary to force a stop or force a restart of the Mac.

 

[Joehascol]

Never had antivirus on any of my machines; PC, Mac, or otherwise. Haven't had a virus since I was fourteen. Honestly, just pay attention to everything that happens to my computer. This is coming from someone who works for a multi-national computer repair chain. What I find is that older people actually bring in their computers quite often, and they alway have antivirus software. If you're an idiot about using your computer, you're going to get malware regardless of what protection you have.

 

[GGJstudios]

I use Sophos free for mac

I recommend avoiding Sophos, as it can actually increase a Mac's vulnerability, as described here and here. There have also been other problems associated with it, such as this.

 

[Queen6]

I'm using the following, and feel pretty safe..

1. Hardware Firewall using Apples AirPort Extreme

2. Using OS X Software Firewall

3. ClamXav

4. FileVault turned ON

5. Downloads from Apple App Store & Identified Developers only

Very much the same here, only ClamXav is now swapped out with Avast as it offers greater realtime protection, and I run a VPN (L2TP) by default. When traveling I avoid open public and hotel networks, using a mobile WiFi router with hardware Firewall and VPN service whenever feasible.

Q-6

 

[Queen6]

I recommend avoiding Sophos, as it can actually increase a Mac's vulnerability, as described here and here. There have also been other problems associated with it, such as this.

Agreed, unfortunately majority of AV for OS X needs root access, so it becomes a trade off to some extent. Avast is 64bit and therefore far less susceptible to attack, ClamXav does not run as Root, however it does not have any effective realtime protection/barrier against intrusion, which now becoming more necessary.

Right now I am on the side of the fence of stopping malware intrusion, versus detecting after the fact be it OS X or more likely Windows orientated, as the clean up can be lengthy process, especially if it propagates to external drives, or you inadvertently pass and infected file on...

Q-6

 

[GGJstudios]

Agreed, unfortunately majority of AV for OS X needs root access, so it becomes a trade off to some extent.

I haven't looked at the most recent versions of all of the AV offerings, but Sophos was one of the very few that ran with elevated privileges. The others didn't, unless they've changed in recent versions.

ClamXav does not run as Root, however it does not have any effective realtime protection/barrier against intrusion, which now becoming more necessary.

ClamXav does have a Sentry feature that runs realtime. If you're practicing safe computing, have firewalls on, etc., realtime scanning isn't necessary, unless you're constantly scanning files shared with Windows users. A periodic scan would be more than sufficient, since it is rare for an prudent user to encounter any OS X malware.

Right now I am on the side of the fence of stopping malware intrusion, versus detecting after the fact be it OS X or more likely Windows orientated, as the clean up can be lengthy process, especially if it propagates to external drives, or you inadvertently pass and infected file on...

Again, since encountering OS X malware is so rare, you might consider running a scan only after doing something that you consider high risk, such as downloading a new app or receiving a .dmg file from another user or visiting suspicious sites, or just before you share files with a Windows user.

 

[ABC5S]

Very much the same here, only ClamXav is now swapped out with Avast as it offers greater realtime protection, and I run a VPN (L2TP) by default. When traveling I avoid open public and hotel networks, using a mobile WiFi router with hardware Firewall and VPN service whenever feasible.

Q-6

How has it been using Avast and how long have you been using it ?

 

[Zxxv]

Unless you make it a regular habit to look at naughty stuff (porn), nope.

thats what an iPad is for.

 

[BenTrovato]

I use Eset cyber security for mac... great product, unobtrusive, & zero reduction in performance.

 

[m4v3r1ck]

^^ I use ESET Cyber Security Pro as my cross platform application too. Beside the AV it has a great snitching tool onboard! Best application of its kind for me and I agree with BenTrovato!

 

[chabig]

Better safe than sorry, so I run Sophos and have done so without any problems. Why take the risk, think of all the hours of reinstalling your Mac or PC. I would rather have some protection, even if in the main it is not needed.

Better to be Safe than Sorry.

If you can't trust Apple's engineers to keep your Mac safe, why would you trust an arbitrary third-party? You should probably run Kaspersky on top of Sophos to keep Sophos safe, and then run something to monitor Kaspersky, and so on...

 

[m4v3r1ck]

I just don't trust myself!

 

[GGJstudios]

If you can't trust Apple's engineers to keep your Mac safe, why would you trust an arbitrary third-party? You should probably run Kaspersky on top of Sophos to keep Sophos safe, and then run something to monitor Kaspersky, and so on...

You should never run multiple antivirus apps, as they can conflict with each other and produce false positives.

 

[chabig]

You should never run multiple antivirus apps, as they can conflict with each other and produce false positives.

So one anti-virus product might highlight another as a virus? Interesting...just another reason not to trust any of them. The engineers that design and build the OS, and who know its inner workings better than anyone else, ought to be most trusted.

 

[GGJstudios]

So one anti-virus product might highlight another as a virus?

Yes, exactly.

 

[Queen6]

I haven't looked at the most recent versions of all of the AV offerings, but Sophos was one of the very few that ran with elevated privileges. The others didn't, unless they've changed in recent versions.

Avast definitely runs several process under Root, one aspect I don't like about the application, other than that it`s a non issue. Not against returning ClamXav, however that equals a lot of manual scans and higher overhead during scanning.

ClamXav does have a Sentry feature that runs realtime. If you're practicing safe computing, have firewalls on, etc., realtime scanning isn't necessary, unless you're constantly scanning files shared with Windows users. A periodic scan would be more than sufficient, since it is rare for an prudent user to encounter any OS X malware.

Thx, yes I have previously used it, however it`s limited to folders not applications. In general I have a high interaction with Windows users/networks. To be honest it just takes one infected file to generate issue, especially with a client. I very much support ClamXav, and have used the app for many years, however it is not updated as frequently as it needs to be, nor does it offer blanket protection. ClamXav can also be intrusive during scanning, Avast far less so, even with all options checked.

Again, since encountering OS X malware is so rare, you might consider running a scan only after doing something that you consider high risk, such as downloading a new app or receiving a .dmg file from another user or visiting suspicious sites, or just before you share files with a Windows user.

Avast has no scheduled scans, equally you can run manual scans of varying levels on the system, or external drives, and it`s easy enough to schedule the app via OS X. Avast has strong file, mail and web shielding. For me scanning Windows exploits equals OS X as ultimately the vast majority of clients run Windows.

If you work in isolation on OS X, and have sole control of the system likely all is good, however in mixed environments with heavy traffic you need to be far more cautions, given my role is to trouble shoot and resolve...

 

[Queen6]

How has it been using Avast and how long have you been using it ?

Over 3 months now, have pretty much migrated all to Avast now as have seen no issue, from 11" Air to high end 15" Retina, and ultimately it`s not a drama to uninstall you just need to use Avast`s installer any leftovers "Find Any File" can deal with.

Completing a full system scan with ClamXav was just becoming tiresome, and prefer malicious code is blocked before entering the system OS X or Windows orientated.

Q-6

 

[grahamperrin]

Third party product choices and combinations

If you can't trust Apple's engineers to keep your Mac safe, why would you trust an arbitrary third-party? …

Not arbitrary.

Anti-malware expertise is greater in some third party organisations than within Apple.

You should never run multiple antivirus apps, as they can conflict with each other and produce false positives.

I would not say 'never'. I say, be cautious.

At least for Microsoft Windows, some anti-malware products are explicitly designed to complement an anti-malware product from a different developer.

 

[ABC5S]

Testing of Anti Virus software you all may wish to read..

http://reedcorner.net/mac-anti-virus-testing-2014/