-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Feb 7, 2013 9:13 AM in response to XxDarkness157xXby sandip3201,I think use comodo internet security instead of MacKeeper..Comodo Internet Security is the free, multi-layered security application that keeps hackers out and personal information in.
http://www.filekb.com/windows/download-comodo-internet-security/
-
Feb 7, 2013 9:16 AM in response to sandip3201by Csound1,Comodo is more useless junk, it is also useless WINDOWS junk, it doesn't work on a Mac
Do you work for Comodo?
-
Feb 25, 2013 8:36 PM in response to spectra9by ronfromtoronto,While I agree the Mac is very secure and immune to most of the crap out there on a corporate network and now with Java exploit holes it is important to have a thin light weight protection on your Mac. I just had a Mac totally freeze on me, after a hard reboot it went to the shell environment and ran a bunch of commands beyond my control and this was after installing the latest OS X security updates for Java. What the heck was that? I had to manually halt and reboot then it finally booted back into OS X Mountain Cougar. So guess what people Mac isn't bullet proof. This cat has been around the jungle a few times and the cyber thugs work very hard at it every day figuring out how to circumvent any os. I have cleaned up several Mac networks hosting literally thousands of windows viruses on their file servers and networks spreading like wild fire to windows computers on the LAN. You can use something thin like ClamX or ESET if you want something that won't turn your Mac into a PC but help keep your network free from threats. An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.
-
Feb 26, 2013 5:49 AM in response to ronfromtorontoby Csound1,I entirely disagree FYI
Why are you running Java if you are concerned about security, that's a bizarre choice.
-
Feb 26, 2013 6:16 AM in response to ronfromtorontoby thomas_r.,What you observed had nothing whatsoever to do with malware. Your machine has something wrong with it that needs to be addressed. Sounds like something caused it to boot in verbose mode. Anti-virus software would not have protected you against that.
This topic has gone round and round so many times now, I don't think anyone is actually reading any of it beyond the end, and maybe the very beginning. For those who have not paid attention to the numerous times I'm sure this has been posted, I refer you to my Mac Malware Guide.
-
Feb 26, 2013 7:49 AM in response to Csound1by SwankPeRFection,Csound1 wrote:
I entirely disagree FYI
Why are you running Java if you are concerned about security, that's a bizarre choice.
You know, some things still require Java to work. For example the GUI config interface for an HP ProCurve switch requires Java to work. Countless other network printer/copiers still use Java for the UI configuration interface. It's not like everyone can swear off Java, not use it, and still function properly through their day. There are countless other sites out there in mainstream Internet land that require both Flash and Java to work properly and they're legitimate business related websites. Bottom line, just because one person can function without the need for Java doesn't mean everyone can, and burying it under the rug with "don't use Java" remarks isn't always an option for them.
Some security on the Mac is better than no security, otherwise you might as well pretend you're impervious to and and all stds and go around unprotected for that as well. Would you do that? No, so why should the PC world be any different. Exploits are there in EVERY SINGLE OS KNOWN TO MAN. How do you think people develop iOS Jailbreak tools? Exploits. What they're used for can be malicious or helpful, but the bottom line is, OSX can still be exploited and believing otherwise is just asking for trouble. Any user should at least put forth some effort to protect themselves with reliable security tools. Some work and some don't, but you cannot blanket statement all newer solutions the same way.
-
-
Feb 26, 2013 8:22 AM in response to SwankPeRFectionby Allan Eckert,You stated; "No, so why should the PC world be any different."
Because of the way that Windows has been design without any real reqard for the network when it first started and since then they have been attempting to band-aid it ever since. On the other hand OS X started from Unix which was designed to work with the network from the very begining. That is why Windows requires AV software. If the user of OS X is the least bit savy they can provide more protection then any AV software with having to worry about the problems that AV software is known to cause.
Allan
-
Feb 26, 2013 10:15 AM in response to Allan Eckertby John Galt,SwankPeRFection wrote:
Some security on the Mac is better than no security, ...
A fine example of a straw man argument.
Whatever follows is not worth reading, quoting, or refuting.
-
Feb 26, 2013 12:56 PM in response to John Galtby ronfromtoronto,Reading the topic the question is simple..which AV is nest for my macbook. Whether your opinion is that the Mac OS requires antivirus or not is a moot point. I personally prefer no AV on my Macintosh computers however it would be naive to think one is immune to security issues on the Mac. When there is a security issue on Mac apple is very slow to roll out updates compared to Windows and I find windows a heck of a lot easier to lock down than an Apple computer since security on a Mac is often met with people that think nothing needs to be done to keep your mad secure.
So based on the topic here is my experience with various products.
Little Snitch - its annoying but a very good product to let you know what's going in and out of your Mac
Intego - not the greatest av / firewall I often find it slows down the system.
Kaspersky - first impressions not good. Caused a kernel panic and system instability.
Symantec Corporate edition - not bad but a little thick on resources.
ClamX - thin and light you don't even feel it there but this is an open source solution so you might not catch everything if there is a real danger present.
ESET NOD32 - very good experience with no major issues and the main thing is I don't notice its there.
Again the best av depends on what you're using and other factors come into play. What works great on one system might not be compatible with another but I haven't had any issues with ESET compared to other security products out there.
PS. Apple does have a statement where they do encourage using antivirus on the Mac :-p
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/01/apple_now_encourages_antivirus_use_for _mac_os_x
-
Feb 26, 2013 1:23 PM in response to ronfromtorontoby John Galt,ronfromtoronto wrote:
PS. Apple does have a statement where they do encourage using antivirus on the Mac :-p
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/01/apple_now_encourages_antivirus_use_for _mac_os_x
A link to a KB article from four years ago, that no longer exists, for an OS they no longer support? Thank you for sharing. Here's an even better one: http://support.apple.com/kb/TA38539
Whether your opinion is that the Mac OS requires antivirus or not ...
Same straw man argument. Come up with different one at least.
-
Feb 26, 2013 1:29 PM in response to ronfromtorontoby MadMacs0,ronfromtoronto wrote:
Apple does have a statement where they do encourage using antivirus on the Mac :-p
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/01/apple_now_encourages_antivirus_use_for _mac_os_x
They had one for a short time, but took it down the last time I checked. Yep http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2550.
-
Feb 26, 2013 1:59 PM in response to ronfromtorontoby SwankPeRFection,ronfromtoronto wrote:
Reading the topic the question is simple..which AV is nest for my macbook. Whether your opinion is that the Mac OS requires antivirus or not is a moot point. I personally prefer no AV on my Macintosh computers however it would be naive to think one is immune to security issues on the Mac. When there is a security issue on Mac apple is very slow to roll out updates compared to Windows and I find windows a heck of a lot easier to lock down than an Apple computer since security on a Mac is often met with people that think nothing needs to be done to keep your mad secure.
So based on the topic here is my experience with various products.
Little Snitch - its annoying but a very good product to let you know what's going in and out of your Mac
Intego - not the greatest av / firewall I often find it slows down the system.
Kaspersky - first impressions not good. Caused a kernel panic and system instability.
Symantec Corporate edition - not bad but a little thick on resources.
ClamX - thin and light you don't even feel it there but this is an open source solution so you might not catch everything if there is a real danger present.
ESET NOD32 - very good experience with no major issues and the main thing is I don't notice its there.
Again the best av depends on what you're using and other factors come into play. What works great on one system might not be compatible with another but I haven't had any issues with ESET compared to other security products out there.
PS. Apple does have a statement where they do encourage using antivirus on the Mac :-p
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/01/apple_now_encourages_antivirus_use_for _mac_os_x
Hey, look at that, an open minded individual who doesn't live in the make-belief world.
Glad to see someone at least knowing that a problem could happen even if you're told it won't by way too many people, who a few times every year or so are wrong when a virus or malware is written for OSX.
I love how the definitive proof that there isn't a problem is people stating that "With a little savvy knowledge any individual can secure OSX so it's never going to be an issue". Really... savvy knowledge...? How many of those people that just picked up a Mac and don't know that you probably shouldn't be walking around like you're Wilt Chamberlain at an STD clinic do you think are savvy?
As I said, the more popular Mac is becoming, the more security issues will come up for them. With MS's W8 changes, which will be their downfall, Mac will become even more popular than ever and eventually individuals will have no other choice but to start the same process of victimization as they have been doing for years on the PC side.
After all, the #1 way to get people to fall for crap is to advertise it to them. The #1 always regarded "security" feature on Mac is that it always prompts the user for admin level privileges before they're allowed to install or run something untrustworthy. Well, how many people come in here every day asking about MacKeeper? Point made... they saw an ad, they clicked on it, read a few words and next thing you know, they're downloading and installing it. No level of security if beyond the final choice of the individual behind the UI. Manipulate that individual enough and you no longer need deeper security holes to get the job done. Take it to the ultimate level and tell that user that everything is safe no matter what because even if they get something it's water off a duck's back and you're just asking for issues. But whatever... keep living high on the hog if you want to.
-
-
Feb 26, 2013 3:31 PM in response to John Galtby ronfromtoronto,http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fdebce6-7ac8-11e2-915b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2M3AjbCo o
I guess that's why the Apple Store has shelves of security products now they should use other than just sell to make a profit.