best malware detector for mac

Wrong on MacKeeper. It doesn't uninstall itself properly UNLESS you only had the Demo version. And even that throws a popup at you pfishing for details. It's true you can ignore it, but its not obvous to the uninitiated. It's an underhand attempt to pfish details from users.

Nor does it INSTALL itself properly unless you are connected to the internet. In other words, it won't let you run many of its features without being connected to their servers, and I'm talking about features that run natively in Mac OS anyway (and for which you don't even need MacKeeper) and don't need any internet conection.

I've had several hundred complaints for all sorts of reasons from people who have installed MacKeeper, and that's just in my tiny backwater of the Internet.

Looks like I'll have to eat my words and continue this thread a bit longer.

So, are you a developer or a blog reader? Let me take a guess.

Yes, I'm both. A blog reader and a developer. I recently received an exclusive e-mail from Apple (no NDA involved, so I'm free to disclose this) inviting me to get ready for Gatekeeper and obtain a developer ID certificate. So much for Apple's Gatekeeper!

Oh, and I have to admit to great shame that I'm a blog reader too. I just read a blog stating that if you drive at 120 mph straight into a brick wall, you will almost certainly die. I think I'll trust the accuracy of that prediction and not directly test that hypothesis myself.

I read in another thread your words to the effect of -- and I'm paraphrasing from memory, "truth dies on the Internet." You do know, of course, that everything you have been writing here is publically viewable on the Internet, right? But I suppose you hadn't thought to possibly include yourself in that statement.

It doesn't uninstall itself properly UNLESS you only had the Demo version.

My, isn't that an interesting piece of information! Exceedingly interesting, when you consider that, on a different thread, etresoft called me a liar for saying it didn't uninstall itself correctly, based on his experience of installing and uninstalling the demo version once! What witty response will you have for us, etresoft? We're all ears.

😁

WZZZ wrote:

But I suppose you hadn't thought to possibly include yourself in that statement.

I am a liar.

Thomas A Reed wrote:

My, isn't that an interesting piece of information! Exceedingly interesting, when you consider that, on a different thread, etresoft called me a liar for saying it didn't uninstall itself correctly

I didn't call you liar. I chastised you for saying anything without having tried it. That was primarily motivated by my own guilt about having earlier done the same thing in repeating this libelous misinformation about MacKeeper.

based on his experience of installing and uninstalling the demo version once! What witty response will you have for us, etresoft? We're all ears.

I'm not about to pay for any anti-virus software, including MacKeeper. But if I did, I surely wouldn't be upset if it left cache files, log files, and installer receipts. Contrary to what softwater implies, such files are harmless and are left behind by all installers. They don't require calm nerves, a sharp eye, and 3rd party software to remove.

Do any of you upper level helper's care that you have completely strayed from the OP original post? From paranoid to stubborn this discussion has moved way off topic and does a dissevice to the unititiated reader trying to educate themselves about their mac's. Enough already!

WZZZ wrote:

(I should point out, I'm neither knee-jerk against nor for Apple.)

The hostile tone and peersonally insulting nature of your comments in this thread would seem to suggest otherwise.

According to your philosophy about testing things first, you cannot disprove softwater's claim without installing the PAID version of MacKeeper.

etresoft wrote:

But if I did, I surely wouldn't be upset if it left cache files, log files, and installer receipts. Contrary to what softwater implies, such files are harmless and are left behind by all installers. They don't require calm nerves, a sharp eye, and 3rd party software to remove.

You might not like these, which it also leaves behind:

LaunchAgents/com.zeobit.MacKeeper.Helper

LaunchAgents/com.zeobit.MacKeeper.plugin.Backup.agent

Frankly, etresoft, you don't know what you're talking about, and its irresponsible of you to go around telling people a piece of s/w is good that you barely know anything about and which has been found to be harmful by literally thousands of users (yes, I can back those figures up).

hpr3 wrote:

Do any of you upper level helper's care that you have completely strayed from the OP original post? From paranoid to stubborn this discussion has moved way off topic and does a dissevice to the unititiated reader trying to educate themselves about their mac's. Enough already!

I saw a cat today.

Cheers

Pete

Do any of you upper level helper's care that you have completely strayed from the OP original post?

The problem is that there are certain catchwords that cause certain folks to start spouting off misinformation, and that kind of thing cannot be allowed, even if it does get to be a little off-topic. Misinformation can stick around a place like this for years, confusing people who find it later, so it must be challenged.

For my part, I apologize for stepping in merely to poke at etresoft a bit. I didn't add anything to the conversation, and that was a regrettable error.

Once they exposed themselves as simply blog readers without the tecnical expertise to understand what is going on, I took another look MacKeeper. What I discovered, after trying it myself instead of relying on unsubstantiated reports, was that everything I had heard about MacKeeper being awful was completely false. Sure, it is typical over-the-top anti-virus scareware. But it uninstalls easily (and cleverly). Pretty much everything that had been written about it was false. I discovered this after looking at it myself instead of relying on blogs. You should try that sometime.

Ugh! I paid for MacKeeper and was highly unsatisfied (not to mention extremely annoyed) with it. I used their Uninstaller - which didn't uninstall everything. Had to do it manually. However, they did refund my money after I filed a complaint with the Bay Area BBB. That's the only good thing I have to say about MacKeeper.

Sorry to butt in - the OPs question was answered I see. Just had to put in my 2¢ about MacKeeper. I agree with those who say that it is, at best, malware, and for what you pay for it, you're better off with a couple of freeware or shareware apps.

Clinton

If those two files are the problematic ones, then why all the drama about finding and deleting log files?

I have never said MacKeeper is good. I haven't used it. It is anti-virus software and I would never use anti-virus software on a Mac. All I tested was the uninstaller. Not only did MacKeeper's uninstaller work properly, it was noticeably better than average for Mac uninstallers. If MacKeeper dumped the anti-virus and focused on the other tools it provides, then I might consider rating it as "good".

What little I know about MacKeeper suggests it has been the target of a vicious and libellous campaign of denigration, often in favour of competing anti-virus products. This is obviously a nasty industry that Mac users should avoid. No anti-virus company has as good a track record on security as Apple. It is unfortunate that any Mac users get suckered into this industry after believing the lies that are spread about supposedly poor security in Apple products.

the target of a vicious and libellous campaign of denigration, often in favour of competing anti-virus products.

It is unfortunate that any Mac users get suckered into this industry after believing the lies that are spread about supposedly poor security in Apple products.

Oh boy, now we're entering conspiracy theory territory. Often in favour of competing anti-virus products??? And the evidence for that is where? I haven't seen that one; that's a first.

And I would add that what is highly unfortunate is that many reading this thread or similar ones will be getting suckered into believing that any and all A-V is bad, bad, bad (oh, except for usual boiler plate about ClamXav being OK for Macs, but good only for preventing passing on Windows malware to PC users.)

I'm not telling anyone to rush out and install some A-V; just to keep an open mind about that and the issue of Mac security. That's all I ever wanted to do when I entered this dismal thread. I wanted the OP to get at least a slightly more balanced impression of the topic.

But everything is either black or white, no shades of grey for a True Believer.

So does anybody believe that Mac are upgrading their security measures in Mountain Lion now that there are so many Macs and iOS devices on the planet? It would seem pretty inviting to those who write and distribute malware. I am happy that Apple have included their own measures re. security lately, but surely it is simply a matter of no longer being complacent but still not a matter of pure paranoia every time we turn our Macs on. I will be happy with ClamXav for the moment and take heed not to mess with torrents or suspicious sites and files. A bit of common sense, really.

Just a big clash of egos in this thread lately has made it very complicated for anybody looking for help, such as the OP. That's not to say that amongst them there are several good points, just very few that these people will let themselves agree with.

Other than that I have nothing to add further to this thread.

Cheers

Pete