Q: heard 2 days ago first mac virus

softwater wrote:

 

I assumed that what he was suggesting is that most? (don't get so pedantic about the quanitfiers) so-called 'AV software' appears to indicate that you have some kind of virus/trojan/malware when you first run it.

I have no idea how you got that from "people that those who decide to place anti-virus software on their Mac, are at MORE a risk of getting harmful applications, than those who don't."

I also wonder where you got the idea that "most" (however you want to define that) AV software indicates you have malware when you first run it. Are you maybe confusing the fake AV scanner social engineering ploy (like Mac Defender uses) with actual AV software?

Maybe I was applying what in communication theory is called 'the principe of charity', or perhaps I'm one of them postmodernist types that think meaning is created by the audience and doesn't reside inherently in the myth of "fixed-meaning" words..

Or maybe you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing...

I don't see anything of value in this back-alley ankle-biting, just a few egos massaging their own sense of superiority, so ultimately my answer is whatever.

All this is about is questioning the factual accuracy of HACKINT0SH's statement, especially when he uses the editorial "we" to imply that he is speaking for some unnamed group.

Simply put, the question is:

Is it really true that people that run AV software are more at risk of getting malware than those who don't, or not?

OSX/Leap-A is both a Trojan and a worm, but not a virus.

It first acts as a Trojan in two different ways. One, you download and install software which contains it. For the second, once running, it then acts as a worm and tries to locate iChat members in your contacts list and pops up the admin dialogue on their computer to allow the installation of software. Anyone who is thinking at all will say no to a request to install software when they know they didn't initiate any such action.

About a year ago, Macworld magazine was reviewing what malware there was for the Mac. Of those reported instances, OSX/Leap-A had infected a whole 50 computers. And this after it had been out in the wild for quite some time. Hardly a major effect.

As far as the "hundreds" of viruses on Macs before OS X, that is a wildly exaggerated number. A few dozen is more like it. And every one of them is completely dead as of Leopard, 10.5.x, as they require the OS 9 and earlier Mac OS's to run.

As far as MacDefender and it's variants, Thomas Reed noted a while back that the person responsible for creating it was caught and is now sitting in a Russian prison. That doesn't mean thought that copies of it still aren't sitting out there.

Lastly, you'd be out of your mind to download anything from torrents. There's no such thing as a "safe" torrent, including Pirate Bay. Such sites are how the most damage is done to Macs. Think the Adobe Master Collection for free looks like a great idea? Well, besides the fact you'd be a 100% thief for doing such a thing, but these torrent downloads are stuffed with other payloads you don't know about. Keyloggers, backdoors, etc. When you launch the installer and enter your admin name and password, you give the installer full permission to install anything in that package, including stuff that isn't part of the software you think you downloaded. It doesn't have to ask you again for the malware that is part of the installer package.

Gentlemen...  It appears that the original poster's question has been resolved.  While discussions about etiquette do have some merit, this isn't the place for it.  Everyone has different personalities.  This is just a subset of people from the real world.

I couldn't agree more.

It seems to be a common scam tactic for AV software to tell you that you have a virus or malware in order to get you to pay for their software. I'm not claiming this is a fact, nor am I saying that MOST software does this, but my source is AV software users all around me.

stevejobsfan0123 wrote:

 

It seems to be a common scam tactic for AV software to tell you that you have a virus or malware in order to get you to pay for their software. I'm not claiming this is a fact, nor am I saying that MOST software does this, but my source is AV software users all around me.

Again, I have to ask if you (and/or your sources) are maybe confusing something like Mac Defender with legitimate AV software. Fake AV scanners are supposedly now among the most common vectors for malware infections across all platforms. They are most certainly a scam & often ask you to provide a credit card number to pay for the product, which sometimes is real but old, badly out-of-date AV software.

R C-R wrote:

 

Again, I have to ask if you (and/or your sources) are maybe confusing something like Mac Defender with legitimate AV software. Fake AV scanners are supposedly now among the most common vectors for malware infections across all platforms. They are most certainly a scam & often ask you to provide a credit card number to pay for the product, which sometimes is real but old, badly out-of-date AV software.

Sorry, I ignored your previous reference to that. No, I have no experience or knowledge of Mac Defender. I forget off the top of my head which AV software this has come up about, but there's been a few recent threads on it. I also checked out a couple of sites and found some laughable 'threats' being listed to justify people installing the software concerned.

If you're genuinely interested I'll dig them out (but not now as it's coming up towards bedtime in Thailand; tomorrow if you wish).

You are not wrong. Even legitimate AV software developers sometimes resort to such tactics:

from 11 January 2012:

Lawsuit Claims Symantec "Scareware" Warns Of Fake Threats To Sell Upgrades

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/01/11/lawsuit-claims-symantecscar eware-warns-of-fake-threats-to-sell-upgrades/

FWIW, that isn't proof that Symantec is actually guilty of what the suit claims. In fact, the author of the Forbes article says the free PC software the suit implicates repaired all the issues it found on his PC & did not ask him to pay for the full version.

Regardless, it is hard to see how this applies to Macs, or to the most frequently recommended AV software for them (ClamXav, which of course is free), or for that matter to Sophos AV for Macs Home Edition, which is also free.

softwater wrote:

 

I also checked out a couple of sites and found some laughable 'threats' being listed to justify people installing the software concerned.

Sure, some threats are laughable, but only if they don't affect you. I run AV software on my Mac largely because I trade large amounts of data with PC users & I would prefer to know ASAP when they aren't being careful about protecting my data on their PC's. I also have some similar (but much less serious) concerns about a few of my Mac-using friends that unfortunately seem quite naive about the threat from social exploits, despite my best efforts to educate them about that.

I don't think that justifies selling them AV software using scare tactics but neither do I think it is a good idea to dismiss everything as nothing to worry about.

Would you mind posting some alternatives to MacKeeper please?

I was surprised to read your harsh criticism of this considering all the positive reviews and ad space it receives. What are you basing this opinion on?

Thanks

Would you mind posting some alternatives to MacKeeper please?

See Beware MacKeeper.  Also, MacKeeper is now known to leave bits behind that harass you with pop-ups if you try to delete it using the provided uninstaller, which I was not aware of when I wrote that article.  (Note that my pages contain links to other pages that promote my services, and this should not be taken as an endorsement of my services by Apple.)

I was surprised to read your harsh criticism of this considering all the positive reviews and ad space it receives. What are you basing this opinion on?

Where are you seeing positive reviews?  Don't be fooled into thinking that something that is heavily advertised must be good.

I would be interested in where you found those positive reviews.

So far everything I can find I would say are anything but positive. In fact I would have to say Thomas's review was really nice in comparison to most of those I have found on the web.

I base my opinion on all of the users who were suckered into install MacKeeper only to discover how much trouble it is capable of causing. Then to discover that the uninstaller provided by Zeobit is basically worthless.

Allan