Virus software for a Mac

superscaper

Scrilla wrote: »

Topics like this invariably spark debates on macs vs PC's.

Well I know that's not me I don't think I've said a pc is better than a mac in terms of security.

Moneymaker

superscaper wrote: »

I thought Leap.A was a virus, sophos say it definitely is not a trojan but a virus/worm. And I've read one account of it infecting a network of macs in the wild.

No, it's a trojan. You have to install it manually (assuming you are stupid enough to double-click on an unknown file that announces itself as unix executable!)

It's a pity nobody can point me to a Mac virus (or preferably a Windoze virus - I'd like to send it to all my Windows-using friends!)

superscaper

Moneymaker wrote: »

No, it's a trojan. You have to install it manually (assuming you are stupid enough to double-click on an unknown file that announces itself as unix executable!)

So why do sophos explicity explain why it's NOT a trojan? And I thought viruses were to do with self propogation not self installation which is a different thing and viruses can quite easily be self propogating while requiring user intervention.

But really what's the point of getting hung up on the semantics of definitions when at the end of the day it's still malware and I'm sure because of the shifting interpretations of virus/worm/trojan that there are as many places that define Leap.A as a virus as they do a trojan. So there's not really anything to prove it either way.

superscaper

I'd like to see Moneymaker join forces with mascherano. Together they represent no computer viruses in the world at all.

superscaper

alexjohnson wrote: »

Old thread but my 2p is that there are three issues.

1. Is it theoretically possible to engineer code maliciously to affect Macs?
Yes. Macs are not "immune" to malware.

2. Are Macs more secure than PCs?
Yes. It is a simple QED - do Macs owned by normal users used in normal environments have spyware or viruses? Evidently not. I wouldn't be as emphatic as Kark H.'s first post, but it is clearly and obviously the case that Mac OS X is more secure than Windows XP, and that this is down not just to the smaller market share but because the Mac OS is inherently more secure (than Windows XP).

Problem is that whenever anyone starts discussing Mac security they only seem able to compare it with wintel machines as if they are the only other computers that exist. So while point number 2 is valid it is pretty much the only thing you can compare Macs with. But I very much doubt people buy Windows PCs because of the "security". I know I don't, and as I've said if security was a major concern then I'd look for the most secure computers, which a Mac isn't. Macs I would agree probably are more secure than Windows (we should be specific) PCs. What really bugged me was Karl H.s earlier statement of fact that Mac OS was the most secure OS in the world which is just completely false (that's not just opinion). Agreeing with your point number 1, while Mac OS is stored on a hard drive it will always be inherently theoretically vulnerable and can't possibly be the most secure OS unless it is moved from the hard drive.

Moneymaker

I've been using Macs since 1987. I guess that makes me a veteran.

In those 20 years I have never seen any form of malware and I've been "on-line" since 1995 so it's had plenty of time to find its way onto my (currently 8) Macs if it was a real threat.

As far as I'm concerned, there is zero threat, and I'll continue to be complacent until such time that I'm senile enough to install something that I shouldn't.

superscaper

Moneymaker wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, there is zero threat, and I'll continue to be complacent until such time that I'm senile enough to install something that I shouldn't.

I wouldn't really use the phrase "zero threat" (scientists rarely use the terms zero, 100%, and impossible) but I know where you're coming from and I agree macs are probably far more secure (for whatever reason anyone believes) than pcs. The thing that irked me was that claim earlier in the thread that they were the most secure when that just isn't the case. It has a much lower risk but it has had vulnerabilities plugged and proof of concept viruses whereas there are OSes that haven't had that AFAIK. But as I said, if I was personally making security my top priority when buying a computer then I would get a windows pc, mac or linux box because all their OSes are stored in a writable format which will always make them inherently less secure than the alternative (ie read only).