Virus Scan

Here is one: http://blog.intego.com/?s=macguard

So, because a scam exists, all AV software is a scam? Do you really think that sort of statement flies?

it depends whether you believe that Norton's notoriously difficult removal process is a bug

The only person I've heard lately refer to "Norton's notoriously difficult removal process" is you. I've certainly heard of folks having success with the uninstaller. Have you ever actually owned a copy of Norton, or is this "notoriously difficult removal process" something you don't actually have first-hand knowledge of?

This is social engineering used to spread Windows malware.

It's also what Norton does. They advertise, telling Mac users that they need virus protection, and then charge them to protect them against a threat that doesn't exist.

You are deliberately avoiding the point and muddying the waters. I'm done with this particular line of conversation. I've made my point adequately to those reading.

I have no problem with people running software like Clam that looks for trojans if they are not certain that users of the computer will not install them, but let's not confuse that with anti-virus software, which is snake oil.

LOL, you don't actually know what Clam is, do you? To quote the very first sentence from the [ClamXav|http://www.clamxav.com> web site:

"ClamXav is a free virus checker for Mac OS X."

I am extremely dismissive of anyone who claims they have a Mac virus, and take the danger of trojans very seriously. I know you know the difference, but I'm confused as to why you're pretending not to.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Thomas,

I think what we have here is a class A troll. Just wants to keep an argument going. No point continuing.

Yup, that's what I figure, too, at this point. He keeps contradicting himself and failing to understand things in ways that seem like they have to be deliberate. Ah, well, I think you and I have made our points adequately, for the record, and anyone who comes along and reads this in the archives later won't have any trouble sorting the facts out of the discussion.

Thomas A Reed wrote:
So, because a scam exists, all AV software is a scam? Do you really think that sort of statement flies?

I was responding to your statement that you had never heard of an AV company selling Mac users AV tools that won't find or remove Mac malware.
Since I presume we do now agree that at least some companies are running AV scams, the question is simply +'is it only some who are scammers, or is it all of them?+'.
This is going to hinge again on definitions of scam, that I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on. I think that telling your customers you are doing something you're not, or selling them a product they don't need is a scam, you seem not to, that's fine.

it depends whether you believe that Norton's notoriously difficult removal process is a bug

The only person I've heard lately refer to "Norton's notoriously difficult removal process" is you. I've certainly heard of folks having success with the uninstaller. Have you ever actually owned a copy of Norton, or is this "notoriously difficult removal process" something you don't actually have first-hand knowledge of?

OK, I'm not going to try to prove this to you, I'm happy to concede it's my perception. A quick search of mac forums brings up a lot of threads about it, but this is really a side issue.

This is social engineering used to spread Windows malware.

It's also what Norton does. They advertise, telling Mac users that they need virus protection, and then charge them to protect them against a threat that doesn't exist.

You are deliberately avoiding the point and muddying the waters. I'm done with this particular line of conversation. I've made my point adequately to those reading.

Your point is far from clear, because the waters of misinformation that av companies continue to muddy are so murky.

I have no problem with people running software like Clam that looks for trojans if they are not certain that users of the computer will not install them, but let's not confuse that with anti-virus software, which is snake oil.

LOL, you don't actually know what Clam is, do you? To quote the very first sentence from the [ClamXav| http://www.clamxav.com > web site:
"ClamXav is a free virus checker for Mac OS X."

I'm perfectly well aware what Clam is, and the use case you described (looking for an removing trojans) was, what I called it. Clam is, like most of this stuff, marketed as an anti-virus tool, but it's only useful application on the Mac is detection of trojans. You know that already though, so I'm not sure what you're weak attempt at playing 'gotcha' is about.

I am extremely dismissive of anyone who claims they have a Mac virus, and take the danger of trojans very seriously. I know you know the difference, but I'm confused as to why you're pretending not to.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm being precise, which is important for the reasons I outlined in a previous message.

You know, I have pointed out consistently that the only reason this 'argument' is continuing is semantics. You're welcome to adopt unorthodox definitions of words if you like, but that will probably result in longer discussions with others until they realize the definitions you are using. Accusing people of trolling when they point out that you are doing this is pretty anti-social.
If you can't articulate your point without being rude, that's a sign that you might be wrong.

Thomas A Reed wrote:
He keeps contradicting himself

No, he doesn't. That's very clear. Making claims like that which are obviously false doesn't support your argument. As you point out in another thread, shame on you for resorting to personal attacks when you fail to make your case.

To sum up:
1. You seem confused about the definition of scamming - whether it is sufficient simply to mislead your customers or whether you have to actually harm them.
2. You seem to be pretending not to know the difference between viruses and trojans, and be ignorant of the different security strategies each requires. I am baffled about this since I know you are well versed in this.

An over-insistence on precision in such a way that it hides the greater truth - ie, emphasizing the absence of Mac viruses, when the average user equates "virus" with "malware", while failing to mention that other types of malware exist - is a silly game that benefits nobody. You can deny you have done this until you're blue in the face, but I've been watching you do it and getting more and more irritated by it for a couple weeks now. I've called you on it, and will do so at any point in the future if the same thing happens on another thread. And that is the last I have to say on the topic.

Thomas A Reed wrote:
An over-insistence on precision in such a way that it hides the greater truth - ie, emphasizing the absence of Mac viruses, when the average user equates "virus" with "malware", while failing to mention that other types of malware exist - is a silly game that benefits nobody. You can deny you have done this until you're blue in the face, but I've been watching you do it and getting more and more irritated by it for a couple weeks now. I've called you on it, and will do so at any point in the future if the same thing happens on another thread. And that is the last I have to say on the topic.

I simply cannot agree with you - you have not addressed the very important distinction between viruses and trojans. If viruses were an issue, you would need active protection, because you can 'catch' them without installing them.
If they are not, then you need different methods to protect against trojans, since by definition the user must install them. If the user is willing to install them, then no 'anti-virus software' will help.
The distinction is really important - it's not simply hair splitting, it's misleading and unhelpful to gloss over this distinction, and makes people more likely to fall victim to scams and malware.

Do you seriously disagree?

you need different methods to protect against trojans, since by definition the user must install them. If the user is willing to install them, then no 'anti-virus software' will help.

That is simply not true at all. Where on Earth did you get that idea? The obtrusive AV software that you object to so much actually forms an additional barrier to prevent the user from making such a mistake.

I hear a voice under the bridge. 😉

Thomas A Reed wrote:

you need different methods to protect against trojans, since by definition the user must install them. If the user is willing to install them, then no 'anti-virus software' will help.

That is simply not true at all. Where on Earth did you get that idea? The obtrusive AV software that you object to so much actually forms an additional barrier to prevent the user from making such a mistake.

Are you picking on my wording, or actually disagreeing with my larger point?
I'm not going to argue with you about the semantics of whether anti-virus software might '+form an additional barrier to prevent the user making such a mistake+', I'm prepared to concede that it might, although I'm far from convinced it would be effective.
My point is that trojans and viruses are quite different threat vectors, and require quite different strategies - scanning is effective against one, but inadequate against the other. To guard against social engineering attacks and trojans one must educate the user, since no 'anti-virus' software can completely prevent the user from authorizing malware to run. While some anti-virus software might prevent some social engineering and trojan attacks, suggesting people should rely on it and treat these attacks in the same way as viruses is misleading and reckless.
Your suggestion that there is something inappropriate about continuing to point this out is particularly troubling.
In short, while it is possible that Norton or whatever else might prevent some of this, it is inadequate for the task. Educating the user on the threat is the only solution, and that requires explaining to them the important difference between the threats. Once you have done that 'anti-virus' software is not only unnecessary, but an impediment. The only use for it is in the case of looking for already installed trojans once the user understands what they have done.

If you don't have a constructive point to make, please refrain.

While some anti-virus software might prevent some social engineering and trojan attacks, suggesting people should rely on it and treat these attacks in the same way as viruses is misleading and reckless.

Who suggested that?

Educating the user on the threat is the only solution, and that requires explaining to them the important difference between the threats.

That's something I haven't seen you do before in your dismissive posts. And don't you see something wrong with parroting back my own words as part of your argument?

I'm done here.

Thomas A Reed wrote:

While some anti-virus software might prevent some social engineering and trojan attacks, suggesting people should rely on it and treat these attacks in the same way as viruses is misleading and reckless.

Who suggested that?

You, in repeatedly berating me for emphasizing the important distinction between viruses and trojans. When you continually want to treat them as the same thing you send the implicit message that the same solution is needed.

Instead of trying to stop people from educating others about the critical difference, and the inadequacy of 'anti-virus' software for the purpose that they are sold (what the rest of the world would call a 'scam') you should get back to what you were once know for - educating users about the different threats.
Your defensive and evasive responses show that you understand this, and I guess you're just embarrassed at this point about the rather shabby corner you've backed yourself into in this thread.

And don't you see something wrong with parroting back my own words as part of your argument?

You know, if you don't like being held accountable for what you say you shouldn't say it. If you post some spectacular piece of nonsense you have to expect to be called on it. I'm sorry if you find that uncomfortable - the solution is to think before you type.

I'm done here.

If by 'done', you mean 'out of gas', then yes, you are. We've established the facts: -

1.Trying to sell 'anti-virus' software for the Mac is a scam. Some of these scams are more brazen than others.
2. Claiming that you need 'anti-virus' software to clean up trojans is true, but in a very limited and misleading sense. First you need to realize that all you need to do to stay trojan free is not install any. Then you may need to hunt out and remove any you did install. After that, you need to don't ever need to run 'anti-virus' software again.

I hope you take a more constructive attitude in the future.