Kaspersky on Monterey?

[Randy B. Singer]

I still don't know how can I start a comparison with Kaspersky or Norton, these 2 companies are ages ahead.

Those two companies may have a good reputation in the Windows community, but they have just the opposite in the Macintosh community.

 

[Cr00zng]

I wouldn't trust Kaspersky. Apple has actually sued them, and Apple even requested that Kaspersky's Web host take down their Web site.

Kaspersky also has close ties to a known spyware development company.

I wouldn't trust any A/V companies, be that from overseas or from the homeland. All A/V companies collect telemetry data for their software and while they may not work with spyware/ad companies directly, there's a pretty good chance that they will sell/share the collected data.

I might be the only one around here, who does not trust Apple either. When Google pays $15B to Apple per year, there might be some data selling/sharing going on as well...

I still don't know how can I start a comparison with Kaspersky or Norton, these 2 companies are ages ahead.

Ages ahead of what? Any companies relying on definition files (whack-a-mole style) is at least one generation behind a better technology for protection....

 

[Randy B. Singer]

I wouldn't trust any A/V companies

I think that's reasonable. Just about all of the AV companies for the Macintosh have acted, at the minimum, in a very smarmy manner at one point or another. However, Intego (makers of Virus Barrier) and DetectX have been notable exceptions.

All A/V companies collect telemetry data for their software and while they may not work with spyware/ad companies directly, there's a pretty good chance that they will sell/share the collected data.

I've represented a number of small software companies. The truth is that just about all programs (of any description) phone home for one or more legitimate reasons. However, there is a difference between software self-registering and it acting as spyware. Some AV software clearly is spyware. But most aren't.

I might be the only one around here, who does not trust Apple either. When Google pays $15B to Apple per year, there might be some data selling/sharing going on as well...

I think that anyone who thinks that a huge multi-national corporation loves them, or is interested in anything other than making money, is deluded. So your distrust of Apple is likely healthy.

But just as Google's business model isn't a secret (it's to give you free stuff in order to steal your personal data and sell it), Apple's business model is to sell hardware. They make plenty of money doing that, they don't have to risk alienating all of their customers by being found to be spying on them and selling their personal data. Besides, Google pays Apple handsomely to leave that sort of business to Google.

Which is not to say that the folks at Apple are saints. I've met many of the folks at the top at Apple and I've done business with them. They can be, and often are, liars, manipulators, and cheats. But they are smart. Smart enough not to get so greedy as to risk their golden goose for a tiny bit of extra spare change.

Ages ahead of what? Any companies relying on definition files (whack-a-mole style) is at least one generation behind a better technology for protection....

The landscape for Macintosh malware doesn't warrant the monetary investment in programming, and the overhead that it would take up on each Mac, to implement heuristics to scan for malware. There is just a handful of malware for the Macintosh, with most of it either neutered or extinct in the wild, none of it is seriously malicious, and none of it self-propagates. It may be warranted for Windows, where there are millions of examples of malware. But it would be expensive to port the best Windows AV software to the Mac, and even after two decades there is no sign that doing so will ever be necessary, or pay off for a developer.

Switchers who come to the Macintosh from Windows don't understand that premier AV software for Windows is drastically different than the same brand of AV software for the Macintosh. Generally AV companies that have come to the Macintosh as an afterthought are offering dreck that is to be avoided at all costs. It's not a coincidence that Intego and DetectX, much recommended on this forum, are from companies that cater to the Macintosh, not Windows.

 

[Cr00zng]

@Randy B. Singer....

We are pretty much on the same page, with minor disagreement here and there....

But just as Google's business model isn't a secret (it's to give you free stuff in order to steal your personal data and sell it), Apple's business model is to sell hardware. They make plenty of money doing that, they don't have to risk alienating all of their customers by being found to be spying on them and selling their personal data. Besides, Google pays Apple handsomely to leave that sort of business to Google.

What's the difference between a company spying on you vs. allowing a third-party to do the same for a handsome amount? Practically nothing, customers data is collected one way, or another... In my view, "outsourcing" the customers' data collection is probably worse, than selling them directly to a third-party, since the company loose control over just what data will be collected. Despite this, most people believe that Apple devices keep their data private. Apple told them so... oh, the wonderful world of marketing...

The landscape for Macintosh malware doesn't warrant the monetary investment in programming, and the overhead that it would take up on each Mac, to implement heuristics to scan for malware. There is just a handful of malware for the Macintosh, with most of it either neutered or extinct in the wild, none of it is seriously malicious, and none of it self-propagates. It may be warranted for Windows, where there are millions of examples of malware. But it would be expensive to port the best Windows AV software to the Mac, and even after two decades there is no sign that doing so will ever be necessary, or pay off for a developer.

Switchers who come to the Macintosh from Windows don't understand that premier AV software for Windows is drastically different than the same brand of AV software for the Macintosh. Generally AV companies that have come to the Macintosh as an afterthought are offering dreck that is to be avoided at all costs. It's not a coincidence that Intego and DetectX, much recommended on this forum, are from companies that cater to the Macintosh, not Windows.

I find it ironic, that you are so much against A/V software, but then recommend two of them for the Mac. One is licensed, while the other is open source. When Intego calls their protection "VirusBarrierX9", there's no way to call this software malware protection only, is there?

PS: Thanks for teaching me two new words, smarmy and dreck...

 

[Randy B. Singer]

@Randy B. Singer....


What's the difference between a company spying on you vs. allowing a third-party to do the same for a handsome amount?

Technically, Google is paying Apple to refrain from creating and offering a Web search engine service. Since such a service is outside of Apple's business model, they are happy to agree to this. Especially since they are being paid well to do so.

Apple doesn't "allow" Google to do anything. They are a separate company, and Apple can't dictate how Google runs their business. Apple could conceivably create their own search engine and compete with Google, thus reducing the number of users subjected to Google's spying, but that would cost Apple a lot of money, and since they don't want to get into the business of spying on their users and selling their information, it would be money thrown away for no return. So, it would make no sense business-wise for Apple to compete with Google in this arena.

Blaming Apple for Google's practices is illogical. Unless you subscribe to the notion that all businesses are conspiring with each other to harm everyone, or that all businesses are inherently evil. Personally I think that those views, while not precisely wrong, are way too extreme.

I find it ironic, that you are so much against A/V software, but then recommend two of them for the Mac. One is licensed, while the other is open source.

You misstate my position. I'm not 100% against AV software (I have commercial AV software running on all of my computers), and I don't exactly "recommend" any AV software.

To get it out of the way, I use commercial AV software myself because my business demands that I use "best practices" to safeguard client information. To do otherwise might be considered malpractice. Do I think that I "need" AV software. No, I don't. Not at all, in fact. I've been running the commercial version of VirusBarrier for two decades now, and in all that time it has never actually saved me from anything that I needed to be saved from. (It's not that it isn't working. It's flagged a bunch of stuff that I could easily have spotted on my own. It's just that there is so little actual insidious malware for the Macintosh that there has been nothing for it to need to save me from.)

In most cases I actively go around recommending against AV software because the commercial (fully interactive) versions of it (and some similar free versions, such as Sophos) very commonly cause nasty slowdowns and software conflicts. While at the same time there has been extremely little that AV software needs to protect Mac users from. Basically, fully interactive (that is, most commercial) AV software causes way more trouble than it prevents. And, for now, it provides extremely little needed protection.

However, DetectX Swift and VirusBarrier (free edition) are both free, and they don't cause any slowdowns or conflicts, because they aren't fully interactive. DetectX used to be handy to have around a number of years ago when adware was becoming a problem. But the flood of adware seems to have slowed to next to nothing. However, since DetectX Swift is free, it's handy to have on hand if one notices that they are seeing ads pop up when they shouldn't be.

The main utility that I see for VirusBarrier (free edition) is that so many people are so paranoid about malware (because of what they read about Windows in the popular press, or because they were previous Windows users) that having it means that anytime that they are overcome by paranoia they can run it, and they will instantly know that their paranoia is unfounded. Since it is free and it doesn't cause any problems of its own, that makes if worth having around.

When Intego calls their protection "VirusBarrierX9", there's no way to call this software malware protection only, is there?

I'm not sure what you are saying or asking.

I can tell you that Intego has been around for many years now. Up until very recently they were a company that only made software for the Macintosh. (Their software isn't a poor port of a Windows product, and they understand the Macintosh.) Of all of the AV companies, Intego has been extremely aggressive in ferreting out new malware when it arises and pushing out updates to users, often overnight. When you use their software, you can instantly see that it is well designed and it gives you the sense that you are using a quality product.

The biggest downside to VirusBarrier (as it is for most commercial AV software) is that it looks for little to no adware. (Apple is the same way with their built-in anti-malware software in the Mac OS.) I think that's because adware developers can make a legal case that adware isn't really malicious and that it is a legitmate product, and AV software developers don't want to get sued for blocking it. Fortunately DetectX Swift does an excellent job of dealing with adware. It's a great complement to VirusBarrier.

If you needed to trust only one commercial AV software developer, I think that Intego would have to be the one. That's what I've done with my business computers, and Intego has never disappointed me for having made the decision. Do I recommend that you run out and purchase the commercial version of VirusBarrier? Nope. Unless you have a special need case like I do, buying it would be a waste of money.

 

[Cr00zng]

Technically, Google is paying Apple to refrain from creating and offering a Web search engine service. Since such a service is outside of Apple's business model, they are happy to agree to this. Especially since they are being paid well to do so.

Technically, Apple shouldn't advertise itself as the most privacy conscious company, when they outsourced data gathering to Google. Doing so had been a business decision without any regards to their customers privacy. Apple could have purchased a search engines, such as DDG, Startpage, etc., and developed it as a service for their customers. Apple has other services that competes with other companies, with more/less success. Albeit, even if Apple did that, they would had to comply with US regulations, like PRISM, for collecting their customers data. Apple had been the last GAFEM company that in compliance with PRISM:



The difference is, that Google would have no access to this data, only the feds.

You misstate my position. I'm not 100% against AV software (I have commercial AV software running on all of my computers), and I don't exactly "recommend" any AV software.

I was just having some fun with your previous statements, I apologize if the emoticons didn't come across as such.

I used to recommend A/V software and still do, if I am forced to. For MS OS, it is Windows Defender, that's just as good/bad as any other A/V products on the market. For the Mac, there's no need for A/V, even occasional scanning for malware is too much in my view. I haven't been using one for years on my MBP. Small and large companies that required to be compliant to certain regulations, the A/V is standardized/utilized for both platforms. It is hard to change the product in companies, due to the accumulated investment into the product, from both financial and mind-share perspective.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

Technically, Apple shouldn't advertise itself as the most privacy conscious company, when they outsourced data gathering to Google. Doing so had been a business decision without any regards to their customers privacy. Apple could have purchased a search engines, such as DDG, Startpage, etc., and developed it as a service for their customers.

Apple, like any commercial company, isn't in the business of "doing a service for the customers." They are in business to make money. If they can make money by doing things that please their customers, so much the better. But it's naive to think that any commercial company is going to throw huge sums of money away with no return just as a service to their customers.

Apple is a company. It's not a charitable entity. They don't "love" their customers. They are as cold and money loving as any other company.