After years of jabbing Microsoft for the seeming need to run antivirus software on Windows, Apple has quietly posted its own recommendation for similar security with its own operating system. The knowledge base article, posted roughly a week and a half ago, doesn’t go so far as to say the software is necessary but still advocates “widespread use” of more than one antivirus package to minimize security risks.
By using more than one piece of security software, virus writers can’t assume that there will be a particular security suite to bypass, Apple says. In Windows, more advanced viruses already know to look for certain defense suites and will mask themselves or even disable the protection to make their tasks easier. Apple currently recommends Intego’s VirusBarrier X5, McAfee’s VirusScan for Mac, and Symantec’s Norton Anti-Virus 11.
The posting isn’t necessarily a reversal of opinions for Apple, though it does reflect an overall softening of its opinions. While one of the first “Get a Mac” TV spots in 2006 made fun of Windows’ susceptibility to viruses and portrayed the Mac as near-immune, the current campaign doesn’t mention this point. The company’s current FAQ for curious switchers also simply says that Mac OS X “resists most viruses” and doesn’t make any blanket statements.
I am surprised to see a FUD based article from Apple Insider. I think this information has been on Apples support site for a long time and just recently updated. The fact that there have been very few computers affected makes it one of their biggest selling points and it would seem like a bad idea to promote this now. Still, I have to chuckle when I hear Apple sales people say it will “never happen”. I think that’s just irresponsible. Even so, if there has been a change, I hope Apple will offer better options than either Symantec or McAffee which are notorious resource hogs. Maybe AVG will get on board.
Thanks to Mr. Justin
McCullough said, “The fact that there have been very few computers affected make it one of their biggest selling points”
Kinda ironic. They weren’t a target because the “virus” is now about money. Apple’s market share isn’t big enough to provide adaquate ROI for the bot network owners. Early on there were lots of hypercard viruses. Alas, Apple didn’t want to compete as a PC OS and the rest is history…
Apple should be afraid, very afraid of the first ‘real’ virus for Macs. In reality just about every Mac out there is utterly unprepared for a major virus, and if it were to take place and spread quickly, wiping out EVERY Mac is a distinct possibility.
The parallel in human history is what happened when Europeans arrived in America. The Spaniards had been exposed to just about every disease out there, and had built up an immunity, and were not affected by Anything they encountered in America. But the Native Americans had not been exposed to the wide number of diseases that the Europeans brought with them, their bodies were utterly unprepared, and they were wiped out.
One well designed computer virus could be catastrophic for the Mac community, simply because it is utterly unprepared. Do you know of ANYONE that has a second line of defense on their Mac as we commonly have on our PC’s?
I’m very careful with the word ‘never’. Anything I’ve ever said I’d ‘never’ do I’ve done. i.e. Work in food service in college, work fast food, have vinyl siding on my house…:)
its, not it’s
The article has been up on apple’s site for a long time…false alarm
Gizmodo did some digging so we don’t have to:
http://gizmodo.com/5100996/false-alarm-apple-mac-os-x-anti+virus-recommendation-is-old
I will say never at this time, the risk is much lower still compares to windows machine.
#5. “I will say never at this time, the risk is much lower still compares to windows machine.”
Huh?
This article is old… not quite sure why it’s just now becoming publicized. Apple’s always recommended anti-virus software…
Intego works for me, and they have a “dual” version for those with Windows via Bootcamp — though I use AVG for that.
Just wait when Apple’s market share gets big enough for hackers to be interested into other than screwing up women magazines’ defattening photo studios or delaying the release of an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
The question is if the posting on Apple’s site will change the point of view of the Kool-Aid drinkers. In corporate America, the only companies doing AV on Mac are the ones that take their CIO/CTO’s seriously when they say to do AV on ‘every box’. That is the minority.
Today, the primary use case for AV on Mac is to detect Windows viruses that have safe harbor on Macs in cross platform environments, which is good enough to sell software.
ClamXav is what I have on my Mac today. It’s free and does an adequate job. Meanwhile, while I work for a company that sells security software, our own IT department doesn’t provide a Mac AV solution.
It’s about time Apple zipped up it’s fly and stopped swingin’ in the wind.
I’ll bet there is a killer Apple rootkit ready to go, which hasn’t been released yet because it still isn’t “cool” to attack Apple.
So, when will it be “cool”? The moment Apple is seen as being just like any other corporation. Which will probably be no to long after Steve passes on.
#10
“our own IT department doesn’t provide a Mac AV solution.”
That’s a frightening thought.
A Mac virus? It’ll never happen…
Everybody knows it’s impossible to write a virus in Objective C…. Right?
Still, I have to chuckle when I hear Apple sales people say it will “never happen”
Funny thing this weekend while in the “holiday” decoration department of a store that will go unnamed.
A saleswoman was explaining to a customer that the LED lights stood for “Low Emissions Device” and were really popular because of that.
I’ve been happy with ClamXAV, which is a graphical port of ClamAV. I have it set to watch my downloads folder and I do a scan every now adn then. It’s a bit limited and requires some manual direction, but overall it is fast, free, easy, and constantly being updated.
#10,
According to Apple you are not using enough anti-virus software.
Also, ClamAV sucks and is utterly worthless for the type of threats you face. Of various threats I have faced, it has failed to catch a single one.
Even worse, you think you are secure, but IMO Apple knows more about your computers than you do, and is telling you that you are vulnerable.
If I were you I would make sure you have a good set of offline backup.
#2-Unbound – I think your immunity analogy is faulty. You’re basically comparing Apples to oranges (almost literally). Microsoft OS and Mac OS have had very different development paths. Mac’s OS didn’t have to remain compatible with legacy platforms. It could mature, along with the newer models of Mac. Windows had to work across a much wider base of PC brands and generations. And that had to affect its virus protection development. Whereas with Macs, just reinventing the OS, every few years, screwed up the virus makers’ task. Macs are going to be leveled by some mythical super virus, because its immunity is supposedly nil. There is no super strain, that PCs are immune to, that Macs aren’t. It just doesn’t work that way. That’s like saying Linux will also be in for a huge infection, because it never bother to get its flu shots before now. This is FUD, propagated by wildly imaginative, but poorly informed, pro-PC extremists.
As for layering on multiple Anti-Virus wares. I think Apple should go the White List route, rather than slowing down its OS with massive Black Lists of malware. After all, Macs only run a small percentage of software, compared with what PCs are allowed to run. So White Listing what’s good, is far easier than Black Listing what’s bad, as the malware starts growing in number.
Macs use to shut out only software developed by Apple approved developers. This was to maintain a certain level of quality, rather than to block malware. But this could just as easily be re-instituted again (if it was let lapse). A white listing feature, with an optional per program bypass, for users who are willing to risk the use of a new tool.
# 14 Gimboid said, “Everybody knows it’s impossible to write a virus in Objective C…. Right?”
Actually, a “real” virus is written in Assembly language. I can’t think of an actual virus written in C or any other high level language.
Now, if you are talking about worms, trojans and others, that’s a different story…
James Hill, what thoughtful post! Is everything OK buddy?
UPDATE:
Apple has removed a widely publicized support document from its website that encouraged Mac OS X users to install antivirus software, explaining that its operating system was designed with safeguards to protect against malicious attacks on its own.
The short answer is “no”.
If the fanboys don’t wise up they’re gong to be “ripe for the picking”.
#18 Glenn “wildly imaginative, but poorly informed, pro-PC extremists”
Dude, you make me laugh…
That’s a view of wildly imaginative, but poorly informed, Apple Fanboy. I work repairing Macs and PCs all day long, there just tools, nothing more. Trust me when I say this, Apple’s day will come.
#21,
Ostriches everywhere applaud the decision.
It was just a matter of time before the net nasties will cripple apple.
Soon the apple fan boys will be talking about how cool the glass and transparency effects look on their Macs running Anti-viruses.
They will have a cool effect whenever a viruses is detected…
#25,
When OSX Defender ships, I suspect it will be an animation of Finder x-raying the desktop, and showing the user simulated zeros and ones. All done in 3D of course;)
#27 pedro,
no need to tell me ur a jew and a gay also. I already no that. Lets stay on the topic of Apple here.
Apple’s move of taking the posting down will set the expected tone for it’s faithful, that this is not an issue, while communicating to the increasing Mac presence in the business community that something needs to be done.
Smart move.
#17 – With regard to ClamXAV I disagree, in comparison to other AV products for the Mac platform. Quite frankly, none of the existing AV products are worth a damn for OS X.
As for your assessment of things, you’re completely wrong. The only message Apple is getting out there is that the business world needs to be cognizant of the threat. This makes sense, since any negative press in the area could hurt Apple’s ability to further increase its market share.
I’ve already outlined the primary use case for AV on the Mac platform, and it has nothing to do with Mac-specific viruses. Further, the notion that there aren’t Mac viruses because of market share is wrong. There are all sorts of Mac viruses… for OS 9. OS X is locked down well enough that viruses have an incredibly difficult time spreading, regardless of environment topology.
Will Apple’s “day come”, as #23 suggests? Only through a virus that is clever enough to get the end user to give permission and a key moment. That’s certainly not impossible, given Apple’s core user base.
#20 – LOL! This just happens to be an area that overlaps my job, so I’m paid to take it seriously.
# 30 James Hill said, “Further, the notion that there aren’t Mac viruses because of market share is wrong. There are all sorts of Mac viruses…”
No, actually, that’s incorrect. There aren’t all kinds of Mac viruses out there. Check the ITW list. Malware today is written for profit making reasons. The malware must be spread to unknown PCs on the internet. There aren’t, as a %, enough Mac machines to make the creation of such malware profitable.