• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

No antivirus is nothing more than fanboy idealism

Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
30
Reaction score
2
Points
8
So long as you never correspond on email with a Windows user, it's possible that an anti-virus solution is optional for a careful Mac user. However, almost everyone I email uses a Windows system, and my Intego VirusBarrier has caught several Windows viruses that otherwise I might have inadvertently forwarded on to some hapless Windows user -- which would be embarrassing, and might even time consuming for me since I'm the tech support for family.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
I think there is one really simple explanation for why we don't see more malware on OS X: the people writing it don't have Macs. Perhaps that "culture" simply doesn't want to take the time to learn how to code this stuff for OS X, or find the idea of running OS X to be abhorrent. Of course I don't think that is the single and only reason, but perhaps a small part of it.

In reading the comments on that article, I think it's worth rebutting a common refrain from some critics who say that OS X is less secure because the whitehatters are winning that contest every year by compromising OS X, and surely they'd be going after the easiest target to win the prize. That's nonsense. They spend all year looking for vulnerabilities and invest a lot of time in the process. If they were going after something that was "easy", they'd risk someone else beating them to it, with that "someone else" including Apple, who would then patch it up before the contest and thus waste their months of hard work finding it.
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
True. But if we are still to believe, we, the user still needs to give it permission to install, then I still feel confident.
Regardless of whether or not people need to install it is largely irrelevant though. What matters is feasibility and prompting users to install malware has proven to be quite effective (again, FlashBack is my example here). You and I are well informed enough to know what is legit software but most aren't.

Even though you have given me a article that was written in 2011, its security flaw being open in the coreGraphics has now been fixed in Mavericks 10.9 (Source), which is another reason to try and update to the latest OS if at all possible, because with a new OS comes new Security fixes.
It only takes one case to prove the point. You only have to sink the Titanic once to prove that it can sink. ;)

And has me buggered why they haven't closed this up, as they try and protect us against ourselves with a hidden 'Library', why not this ??
I get why they have that functionality in Safari (convenience) but it's really stupid. And the hidden Library folder thing is a half-baked attempt. If users manipulating it was a huge concern, Apple would mandate more stringent permission requirements for it.

Because they have the same attitude towards it as us, the user does.
If Apple takes the same precautions that the average user does for security, we're all doomed.

At the end of the day, being set on the u-Nix system, its still going to be harder to write one for the Mac OS, and hence the reason Hackers don't.
Ah, but Unix is not a panacea nor does difficulty preclude the possibility of a virus. Again, I agree in principle that OS X is quite secure but I still think it's very important to realize that OS X is an operating system like any other inherently.

I don't believe the crap about the % difference in how many of each system is out there, I just think they can't be bothered because its more difficult. FULL STOP ;)
You can disbelieve the numbers but they don't lie. ;)

Just a note - I'm not trying to antagonize people nor am I trying to argue against everyone here. I'm just playing devil's advocate (because it's fun). I respect each person's opinion and anything I say here is in good spirits (I say this in the off chance that people think I'm angry).
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
118
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I've considered this a valid/possible reason for a long time. But you would think after all these years…some Apple/Macintosh-hater would target us with something. We're talking 13+ years of Mac OS X.

- Nick

I agree.

Back when I was a Windows user and becoming interested in getting a Mac the slightest mention of doing so on some of my favorite Windows Forums was immediately met with a rabid negative response. The slightest news of an OSX virus rumor spawned page ofter page of cheering 'I told you so' negative comments only to die out after being disappointingly disproved. I got so sick of the Apple haters I stopped visiting those forums before I even owned a Mac.

I can't believe that with that kind of sentiment among a gazillion computer savvy Windows fanatics/Apple haters that in 13 years none of them has felt like targeting OSX with viruses. I would think that after all this time there has been an enormous effort at doing so that has 'so far' been unsuccessful.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
I agree.

Back when I was a Windows user and becoming interested in getting a Mac the slightest mention of doing so on some of my favorite Windows Forums was immediately met with a rabid negative response. The slightest news of an OSX virus rumor spawned page ofter page of cheering 'I told you so' negative comments only to die out after being disappointingly disproved. I got so sick of the Apple haters I stopped visiting those forums before I even owned a Mac.

I can't believe that with that kind of sentiment among a gazillion computer savvy Windows fanatics/Apple haters that in 13 years none of them has felt like targeting OSX with viruses. I would think that after all this time there has been an enormous effort at doing so that has 'so far' been unsuccessful.

The problem with Mac haters writing malware to target Macs as a way to make a demonstration of some sort is that they would have to actually buy a Mac, then learn how to code for it. Such a person would have to have serious anger issues to put out that much effort.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
118
Reaction score
1
Points
18
The problem with Mac haters writing malware to target Macs as a way to make a demonstration of some sort is that they would have to actually buy a Mac, then learn how to code for it. Such a person would have to have serious anger issues to put out that much effort.

Some of the, I suspect, PSYCHO fanatics that I saw malicious comments from I'd bet would go to any lengths to be the first to proclaim 'I told you so', if it could be done.
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
295
Points
83
Location
Waiting for a mate . . .
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM - 10.11.3, iPhone6s & iPad Air 2 - iOS 9.2.1, ATV 4Th Gen tvOS, ATV3
However, almost everyone I email uses a Windows system, and my Intego VirusBarrier has caught several Windows viruses that otherwise I might have inadvertently forwarded on to some hapless Windows user -- which would be embarrassing, and might even time consuming for me since I'm the tech support for family.

Im sorry, and people might think bad of me, which I really don't care, but if the Windows recipient isn't in the mindset of having their own AV running to grab such things, thats their problem.
Im not one for babying and looking out for Virus's for other people, if they don't have the audacity to do it themselves. If they receive one from me (even though I rarely pass on the cat jokes or other attachments unless it comes from me) and they don't have AV running on their Windows box, so be it. Bad luck chum. You should be looking after yourself, and shouldn't be of the mindset, that, that someone scanned it for me !!! Big enough to surf the www, your big enough to look after yourself when it comes to viri (for the latinist's) ;)

Just a note - I'm not trying to antagonize people nor am I trying to argue against everyone here. I'm just playing devil's advocate (because it's fun). I respect each person's opinion and anything I say here is in good spirits (I say this in the off chance that people think I'm angry).

Hahahaha Angry ? You ? :p Never !!!
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
"A saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness." I'm not sure you need to look further than I! ;)
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
"A saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness." I'm not sure you need to look further than I! ;)

I'll have to compare/contrast the definition of "saint" that I'm familiar with…and the personality of the Vansmith that know!lol;);)

- Nick
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
Vansmith = Saint
lifeisabeach = Angel

Now this is a situation I'm comfortable with!:)

- Nick
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Georga
Your Mac's Specs
Mac mini 2.6GHz i5 8GB RAM 1TB HDD OSX Yosemite
This has been an interesting read as I'm running Sophos because of Flashback and am now seriously thinking I've been wasting resources in doing so. Makes me wonder about Chrome because of MacInWinn's statement about sites reporting back to Google are you opening a door that wouldn't be if using Safari?
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Makes me wonder about Chrome because of MacInWinn's statement about sites reporting back to Google are you opening a door that wouldn't be if using Safari?
I think he's pointing to their web products and not Chrome itself, the former of which very likely do track not you specifically but your machine. All Chrome does is generate a random non-identifiable token to track installs. You'll see silly suggestions that it tracks what you browse but those suggestions are all rooted in tin-foil theories that fail to see that the "tracking" Google does with your search is only done through predictive searching which every browser does. In fact, the biggest story about this was one put out by Microsoft saying that IE didn't track like Chrome does because it didn't track your search results. What they failed to tell people was that they disabled predictive searching in IE and enabled it in Chrome.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
This has been an interesting read as I'm running Sophos because of Flashback and am now seriously thinking I've been wasting resources in doing so.

I believe that it's reasonable to keep AV software installed to run periodically as a "second opinion". Apple provides a good line of defense with the built-in XProtect, but it's not infallible. Actively scanning for threats is probably overkill... just run it once in a while to scan the drive.
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,208
Reaction score
1,411
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
I believe that it's reasonable to keep AV software installed to run periodically as a "second opinion". Apple provides a good line of defense with the built-in XProtect, but it's not infallible. Actively scanning for threats is probably overkill... just run it once in a while to scan the drive.

I know that I've been pretty "anti-AV software" in this thread. But this is probably a situation/logic I personally would be comfortable with.:) Installing an AV app for periodic scanning (2nd opinion)…but not having it active 100% of the time.

If we REALLY had virus's to be concerned about…then a 100% of the time AV scanner would be more appropriate.:)

- Nick
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
I know that I've been pretty "anti-AV software" in this thread. But this is probably a situation/logic I personally would be comfortable with.:) Installing an AV app for periodic scanning (2nd opinion)…but not having it active 100% of the time.

If we REALLY had virus's to be concerned about…then a 100% of the time AV scanner would be more appropriate.:)

I actually just ran ClamXav (first time in a couple months) and it gave me 2 hits on Windows software that I run in Wineskin: WinRAR and Popcorn Audio Converter. I'm quite certain those are false positives since I got the installers direct from the developer websites. I even downloaded the most recent version of WinRAR and Clam still says the installer is a virus. This is really aggravating, even though false positives are nothing new, because you just don't KNOW when to trust the results of a scan.
 
OP
cptkrf
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
453
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
The same as Sheldon Cooper - East Texas
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 2014 i5 5k 32gb 1tb fusion, second TB display, 2014 MBA
The problem with Mac haters writing malware to target Macs as a way to make a demonstration of some sort is that they would have to actually buy a Mac, then learn how to code for it. Such a person would have to have serious anger issues to put out that much effort.

Actually, you don't really "Code for a Mac" or any other OS. Major viruses come from major production groups, rather than some young kid with social problems, as in the past. The writer(s) is an expert in C, C++ or one of the other languages that can intersect with other code and is also a whiz at reading raw code and hex streams. It is no different than a group trying to write a device driver for an closed device, except for the criminal part.

And the actual testing, nowadays, would be done on a VM version of the target OS. Who would want to actually load windows over and over every time a test was run? Then, if the virus was feasible, it would be run "for real" on a real target.

The need for a particular machine with a particular OS is trivial. A malware group could order a dozen Macs if they needed. Or two hundred. That is obvious from the reports about the few malware groups that have been arrested, or just found out about.

If a hole had been discovered to allow a drive by virus on a Mac had been found, we would have that virus today. Therefore, no holes have been found. Note, that this does not say that a hole doesn't exist - just that, if it does, then it is unknown so far.

Unfortunately, the laws about turning malware loose on the Internet have punishment mandates about equivalent to "I'm going to tell your Mother on you."
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top