09-12-2010, 02:57 PM

You know what? I now know why people here and in other Mac communities are against antivirus software on the Mac.

I went to update iAntivirus and when I clicked the smart update button I got a message saying "Invalid update file".

So I decide I'll go to their website and ask on their message board if something is wrong. But guess what? Their message board no longer exists because according to the message displayed on their website now the domain expired yesterday!

I can say before the website expired and when I was able to get updates that anytime I scanned for something with iAntivirus it detected nothing. I can say that everyone saying antivirus software on the Mac is more trouble than it's worth is right. I can definitely say the people at PCTools are a bunch of morons for being a professional company and letting their domain expire. But what I can't say is whether or not there is a security risk for my Mac now because of this.

I say this because the domain is no longer in their hands, because iAntivirus is able to install updates since I gave it my administrator password, and what is to keep someone from buying the domain and putting malware where iAntivirus would download the update from?

09-12-2010, 03:19 PM

You know what? I now know why people here and in other Mac communities are against antivirus software on the Mac.

Me to , you don't need it.

09-12-2010, 03:32 PM

This happened to me as well. Hopefully, it's an oversight on the part of the publisher and will be rectified tomorrow.

I think the fact that we got an "invalid update file" message indicates that the application IS still working normally.

I turned off automatic update and real-time detection. I think it's safe to use as an on-demand scanner because it's going to use the last valid signature file.

The page you're seeing when you access their website is a normal parking page. Meaning NO ONE ELSE has yet aquired the domain. It's reverted to unregistered status. My experience with my registrar is that the domain is protected from aquisition by another party for a certain period of time after expiration. Hopefully iantivirus' publisher's registrar does the same, and they'll be able to re-register it as soon as they know it's expired.

Naturally, the other possibility is that they went belly-up and just allowed the domain to expire without telling anyone.............

09-12-2010, 06:00 PM

And why download Windows only virus definitions which cannot affect Mac OS X? And have to pay for the privilege?

09-12-2010, 07:12 PM

And, why was this posted in the "Switcher" forum?

Moved to "Anything Goes".

09-12-2010, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by harryb2448

And why download Windows only virus definitions which cannot affect Mac OS X? And have to pay for the privilege?

Please know the product before bashing it.

iAntivirus doesn't protect against Windows malware; thus doesn't have any in its signature database and needn't download any. And it's free. (The free version has all the features anyone would want in a Mac anti-virus. If they went out of business, that's probably why.......nobody bought the paid version.)

I like iav because it has virtually no impact on resources. I hope it's not gone. There are only a few Mac viruses out there; the chances of getting one now are virtually nil, but NOT non-zero. And with more Macs, there will be more viruses. Contrary to popular misconception, the Mac is not virus-proof. Thus I prefer having an av app.

09-12-2010, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by coaster

Please know the product before bashing it.

iAntivirus doesn't protect against Windows malware; thus doesn't have any in its signature database and needn't download any. And it's free. (The free version has all the features anyone would want in a Mac anti-virus. If they went out of business, that's probably why.......nobody bought the paid version.)

I like iav because it has virtually no impact on resources. I hope it's not gone. There are only a few Mac viruses out there; the chances of getting one now are virtually nil, but NOT non-zero. And with more Macs, there will be more viruses. Contrary to popular misconception, the Mac is not virus-proof. Thus I prefer having an av app.

I think the day that a virus hits a Mac you will find every newspaper or news
channel stating such in the meantime I will continue to run mine AV free. You
do know that an AV program only works on known virus's.

09-12-2010, 09:05 PM

Hmmmm......

gotta wonder why Apple itself recommends AV protection:

Washington Post article

Also, ever google "Mac security" ??

there sure are a lot of hits. whole forums and other sites devoted to nothing but Mac security.

and when you do your OS updates, why do the descriptions often say the update is to fix a security flaw?


Hmmmmmm........

09-12-2010, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by coaster

Hmmmm......

gotta wonder why Apple itself recommends AV protection:

Washington Post article

Also, ever google "Mac security" ??

there sure are a lot of hits. whole forums and other sites devoted to nothing but Mac security.

and when you do your OS updates, why do the descriptions often say the update is to fix a security flaw?


Hmmmmmm........

That article is dated and security flaw and virus are not the same but to each
his own.

09-13-2010, 02:00 AM

Ha

well, moot point anyhoo, as the iantivirus site is back on line

09-13-2010, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by coaster

There are only a few Mac viruses out there

This is incorrect; there are NO Mac viruses. As in zero.

the chances of getting one now are virtually nil, but NOT non-zero.

They are exactly the same as your odds of winning the lottery on mars; ie zero. There are no viruses for the Mac, therefore there is no chance of acquiring one, even if one tries.

And with more Macs, there will be more viruses.

This myth has been debunked more times than the "Obama's a Muslim" line of malarkey. Did you know we have a FAQ *right on this forum* that debunks it as well?

Contrary to popular misconception, the Mac is not virus-proof.

Contrary to bewildering mass ignorance, this contention isn't true. Not only are there no Mac viruses -- if you knew what a virus was and how Mac OS X works, you'd know that that chances of there ever being a Mac virus are extremely remote.

09-13-2010, 03:01 AM

Thanks for the heads up that the sight it back up.

Also just a note, as far as a true Virus (Self Installing, Self propagating) I do agree with Chas. There are only a couple of Trojans out there that you get through Porn Video Codecs and Piracy of Apple software. You have to give them Permission to install and provide the root password. So I will have to say I totally agree with Chas at least at this time and probably for all time the way OSX is designed.

Like I said in another thread here a long time ago. I went hunting for that so called Codec Trojan which is a DNS changer. Deliberately installed the thing, laughed at it and had it removed Via the Terminal faster than I can type this paragraph and I type 80+ WPM.

At this point and probably forever, only time you might need an Antivirus is to protect your Windows friends if you are on say an office network. BUT....
If the Windows systems are properly protected, then any Windows virus you might send over would be instantly detected and stopped on the WINDOWS box. So get your friends with Windows to install a good Anti Virus and then you will not need one on OSX!

Sorry for the rant.

09-13-2010, 10:40 AM

I do agree that the definition of "virus" is somewhat in difference here.

Where there is software, there is no "never", there is no "zero", there is no such thing as human perfection. Because the humans who create the software are imperfect, the software is imperfect. This is the way it has always been and always will be. There is someone out there who can exploit OS X if he's so inclined to do so. Whether that exploit qualifies as a "virus" is a matter for a semantics debate. Whether any virus protection software could prevent or eradicate that exploit is a matter for a technical debate.

I think that, in the end, even if the chance of a malware exploit were zero, if the user is concerned, and an application that does absolutely nothing addresses that concern and has no impact on resources and performance, it's worthwhile to have it. Especially when the price is free.

09-13-2010, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by coaster

NOT non-zero.

Non-zero means it is anything else except zero. And something that is not this must be = zero. So "not non-zero" is the same as "is zero"

09-13-2010, 07:48 PM

I didn't not notice that double-negative too.