Some of my fellow Mac users have told me that ClamXav has been installed on their computers when their Apple tech set up their systems. Is this program necessary?
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011), OS X Mavericks (10.9)
I don't use it (but if I was going to install anything that would be it). The following information may help you decide: http://www.thesafemac.com/mmg-antivirus/
No.
In light of the Shellshock bug, why would you say No?
Kate
What do you use your Apache webserver for (that's about the only thing on your Mac that would be affected by ShellShock)
And how would an ineffective piece of anti virus software protect you from something that is not a virus?
If this is causing you to be nervous install ClamX, it won't do anything (except possibly make your Mac run badly) but you may feel better.
blueCdreams wrote:
In light of the Shellshock bug, why would you say No?
This could easily change in the near future, but there is currently no known threat to OS X from Shellshock that would be identified by ClamXav (and I would guess any other A-V software around today).
More to the point, Apple has been widely quoted as saying:
The vast majority of OS X users are not at risk to recently reported bash vulnerabilities," an Apple spokesperson told iMore. "Bash, a UNIX command shell and language included in OS X, has a weakness that could allow unauthorized users to remotely gain control of vulnerable systems. With OS X, systems are safe by default and not exposed to remote exploits of bash unless users configure advanced UNIX services.
Have you configured any such services?
Because ClamXav would not have any effect on the bash bug (aka shellshock). Also the bash bug is very unlikely to affect Mac users, unless you are both running a web server AND that web server is using CGI scripts that use bash. Or you configured your Mac to allow anonymous remote shell logins, as in you are running a GIT source code control distribution hub. Or you have enabled the Common Unix Printing Services Web Interface (and it is something you have to intentionally do via the Terminal, so you would know if you had done it). Otherwise that Mac user is not at risk.
Besides there is a fix for the bash bug.
Mavericks
OS X bash Update 1.0 – OS X Mavericks
Mountain Lion
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1768
Lion
My best guess is that the biggest threat to the average OS X client user will come from malware downloaded from a web site that was infected due to a bash vulnerability. It's most likely that such infection will come from some old malware resurrected from the grave to take advantage of this situation as quickly as possible. I would expect GateKeeper, Protect and any A-V scanner software currently installed to adequately address this threat.
If webmaster are as slow to patch bash as they were to patch HeartBleed, then this might go on for some time and we might start seeing some new OS X malware.
MadMacs0 wrote:
My best guess is that the biggest threat to the average OS X client user will come from ......
I disagree, the biggest threat will come from all the crap 3rd party stuff that the panicky will install because the news said they should. Then the trouble will start.
Csound1 wrote:
the biggest threat will come from all the crap 3rd party stuff that the panicky will install because the news said they should.
Well I haven't seen a lot of that yet. For instance, Intego only lists it last as "extra protection".
What can you do to stay protected?
Until Apple patches this hole, which they no doubt will, you can take a few simple steps to make sure you’re not exposed:
- Don’t enable Guest Access AND at the same time enable All Users for Remote Login.
- Don’t run a Web server on your personal machine.
- Have a strong password on your Account.
- Keep Gatekeeper turned “On.”
- Only install or run signed Apps from trusted sources.
- For extra protection install a Firewall, such as Intego NetBarrier.
MadMacs0 wrote:
Csound1 wrote:
the biggest threat will come from all the crap 3rd party stuff that the panicky will install because the news said they should.
Well I haven't seen a lot of that yet. For instance, Intego only lists it last as "extra protection".
We disagree.
I will under no circumstances recommend any of that junk. YMMV
I have seen far too many people 'relying' on useless 'protective' software on the strength of some 'recommendation' And I have had to help too many people remove it because of performance and stability issues
here is a link to a patch for the Bash Bug --
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6495?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
Don't get it. Mac's don't get viruses and any trojans they might get the OS will notify you before they get installed. All ClamXAV does is use up system resources.
ClamXav is the standard, recommended antivirus so people/employers feel better. It uses far fewer system resources than any other AV tool (except for Apple's XProtect, of course). It is fairly harmless, which is more than you can say about most of the other AV tools. Typically they cause more problems than they solve. The primary benefit that ClamXav provides is the "warm fuzzy".
Csound1 wrote:
We disagree.
No we don't. You haven't seen me recommend Net Barrier or any other "crap 3rd party stuff."
We disagree about which category Clam belongs in.
Should Mac users install ClamXav
