can macs get viruses?

marleyboy

redcard wrote: »

Again, a list supplied by a virus vendor that probably means very little to the OP, and hardly tells the whole story.

"In the same year, Sevendust, also known as 666, infected applications on Apple Mac computers."

That tells the OP a lot!

Congratulations for acknowledging this "basic yet obvious" piece of information. I am sure it will help the OP in understanding that Macintosh can indeed become affected.

Albeit it might not help you much, as its quite obvious such information is far far too complex for you to grasp, lets hope the OP has a better understanding than those poor souls who can only comprehend a Yes or No answer.

marleyboy

redcard wrote: »

I'll continue to skip the virus checker on my Mac as I don't think I need it.

Good for you, so lets leave the OP to make his own mind up, as your really not helping the OP one iota.

And your quite right, I am not the most tech savvy person, but I dont go around pretending to be do I

[Deleted User]

redcard wrote: »

If you're a sensible Windows or Mac user, you don't need virus checking.

A sensible person would choose to use software to ensure that there is not an infection present rather than to leaving it to chance.

jayme1

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

Actually marleyboy gave the full answer to the OP by supplying evidence of malware affecting Macs in the past. It was only you who wanted him to list the Windows ones because you're grasping at straws

I was the one who gave the link I just choose to not put it in one big quote

redcard wrote: »

If you're a sensible Windows or Mac user, you don't need virus checking. However, if you're not, then you need all the protection you can get.

I would definately say windows users should run antivirus after all there are lots and lots of malware that can infect windows through mearly visiting an infected site (macs are curently at none)

redcard wrote: »

You know that is from Sophos? They make money from scaremongering and anti-virus.

How you could think that's an impartial source, I have no idea!

Now, you posted the Mac list, care to post the Windows list for comparison?

yes while you can construe it to be 'look have been malware in the past you have to get our antivirus quick now before you die of malware', the simple truth is all that is said in that article is still fact (those are true malware and in the correct date) and you cannot argue that it isnt.
infact they left some stuff out like the proven click jacking attacks earlier this year (though they weren't released into the wild so that is perhaps why)

posting a windows list would be silly because everyone already knows they can and do get lots of malware already.
My link was only to show that through history macs can (<- look this is what the OP was asking "CAN macs get viruses?") and have had viruses and malware in the past so you can bet your last penny that they will get more in the future.

BUT you will also notice that everyone of thoes past malware in the history has to have specific user action like say, downloading ilegal software from a torrent and installing it, not just picking it up buy visiting an infected website (being specifically asked to install a 'plugin' is different)

so the answer to the thread is yes macs can get viruses.

marleyboy

Yes, sorry jayme1, I clicked thanks in acknowledgement of your previous post, but I should have pointed out that you had posted the link prior. So to rectify and for the record, all the credit goes to your previous post

marvin

esuhl wrote: »

Good grief - that's a good point! I hadn't really thought about that as a plus point for webmail.

Having said that, I find an email client much easier and quicker to use, so I'm not gonna change (I've never executed any malware received by email)...

Why not have the best of both worlds and download from hotmail (or Gmail) and leave a copy on the hotmail(or gmail) server.

Can read on computer, store on a computer (or multiple computers) and store a copy in the cloud.

It does not download anything in the junk folder so safe from that.

23n1th

redcard wrote: »

You know that is from Sophos? They make money from scaremongering and anti-virus.

How you could think that's an impartial source, I have no idea!

Now, you posted the Mac list, care to post the Windows list for comparison?

They make money from antivirus and research. They unlike you know what they are talking about. But you are right you have no idea.

redcard wrote: »

Ahh, there we go. Didn't think you would. Funny that!

Is it because the Windows list would be about 10 billion pages long.

Irrelevant.

redcard wrote: »

The one that's plastered with advertisements?

FREE indeed

Irrelevant. Last I checked free with advertisements is still free, idiot.

redcard wrote: »

Yes. The only possible answer there can be to this question is 'Yes'.

I answered honestly, your gave half an answer. Hardly helpful to the OP.

So if the answer is yes what point are you arguing? You don't have one did you.

Hardly helpful would be going on about windows viruses when the OP asked about Mac viruses

redcard wrote: »

There's thats the answer.

You wonder why people just can't be honest, rather than having their answers skewed by their vested interests.

The OP was answered honestly the only vested interest is yours, which is wrong. Troll.

redcard wrote: »

Again, a list supplied by a virus vendor that probably means very little to the OP, and hardly tells the whole story.

"In the same year, Sevendust, also known as 666, infected applications on Apple Mac computers."

That tells the OP a lot!

Who else would be doing research into malware???

redcard wrote: »

I'll continue to skip the virus checker on my Mac as I don't think I need it.

Good you do that

If you're a sensible Windows or Mac user, you don't need virus checking. However, if you're not, then you need all the protection you can get.

Wrong

S0litaire

As the Simpsons Rev. Lovejoy says:
"Short answer Yes. Long answer No... with a but."

Can Mac get a virus:

Short answer: Yes it can.

Long answer: No. Generally most Virus target Windows Machines due to their popularity, "BUT" their are virus out there which specifically target Macs (but they are a very small compared to the tens of thousands targeting Windows.). It is more likely that a Mac will be infected when a program they are using gets attacked! Flaws in programs like Adobe reader, or flash can let malicious scripts and programs run with higher that normal permissions and do damage that way. A good anti-virus is a good thing to have.

I'd suggest Clam AV its free, avalible or mac Linux and windows and is an established well respected anti-virus.
it's not flashy It's small and does it's job well!

uptomyeyeballs

Seems right to me to do all the things necessary to keep your investment running in good working order. It doesn't really matter if it's a Mac or a PC. In fact it's probably more important with a Mac as they cost more! If that means running antivirus then what's the problem? You can get good software for free these days. To do otherwise just seems pointless, naive and in some cases stupid, especially if you visit lots of shady websites and download lots of torrents.

jbreckmckye

Typically speaking, multi-user operating systems are harder to attack, because they assign a 'privileged' account for system administration and a 'less powerful' account for everything else. Unix is an inherently multi-user OS, and the Apple uses a Unix variant (this is for historical reasons to do with OS X's ancestors NeXtStep and OpenStep, not thanks to security decisions. In fact, come to think of it, Unix isn't great for standalone workstations - as evidenced by the way OS X 'needs' to hide its file structure from you). Modern Windows OSes are multiuser too, but users typically disable things like UAC (Apples don't allow root access full stop, but I imagine that if MS tried the same thing, its users would be up in arms).

That said, it's quite possible for a process running at one level of privilege can find an exploit to pull itself up to Root level. And multi-user environments don't really change the nature of infection. Many viruses exploit things like buffer overflows, then inject their own assembler into the executable - even in a nix-like OS, a worm could quite easily destabilize the app and spread itself. Others hide themselves in things like MBRs, then write themselves in the interrupt vectors - stack-like lists of pointers to be followed on a specific event. Because these lists are stack-like, and therefore first-in-last-out, and because each called process can only poll for the pointers previously called, it's possible for malware to insert its own pointer at the base of the 'stack', allowing it to run after kernel-level operations and without the knowledge of permission controls. All these things can still happen in Unix-like OSes, so even they need to be engineered against exploits.

Likewise, nix-like OSes still need firewalls to turn off ports. And I'm sure you've heard of 'rootkits'. Obviously, these are aimed at taking control of Unix-like OSes - no other class of operating system has a concept of 'root'.

It's moot anyway. I think we'll see far fewer viruses as-we-know them, as we'll move to a variety of web-enabled thin OSes and use cloud applications. What we will see, however, is more phishing and social engineering attacks.