Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Need both ClamXav and opendns for virus protection?

I recently caught a Trojan virus on my MacBook Pro from stupidly opening a Google Docs attachment sent to me through email. I've changed password, removed email filter put on by the virus and changed dns to opendns. Now I'm running ClamXav for a good scan. I see an offer to purchase opendns on an annual basis. Is it recommended to purchase both ClamXav and opendns? In what way are they different and do they compliment each other?

MacBook Pro, OS X El Capitan (10.11.3)

Posted on Jan 22, 2016 7:39 AM

Reply
Question marked as Best reply

Posted on Jan 22, 2016 2:26 PM

You should not need either. Usually running a scan with Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac will identify such problems and allow you to eliminate them.


https://www.malwarebytes.org/antimalware/mac/


It does not run in the background, so it will not have any adverse performance impact on your Mac.


In addition it is often recommended by Apple telephone support and genius bar technicians.


Ciao.

9 replies
Question marked as Best reply

Jan 22, 2016 2:26 PM in response to psgoatman

You should not need either. Usually running a scan with Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for Mac will identify such problems and allow you to eliminate them.


https://www.malwarebytes.org/antimalware/mac/


It does not run in the background, so it will not have any adverse performance impact on your Mac.


In addition it is often recommended by Apple telephone support and genius bar technicians.


Ciao.

Jan 22, 2016 5:53 PM in response to psgoatman

Mac users often ask whether they should install "anti-virus" (AV) or "anti-malware" software. The short answer is "no," but it may give the wrong impression that there is no threat from what are loosely called "viruses." There is a threat.

1. This is a comment on what you should—and should not—do to protect yourself from malicious software ("malware") that circulates on the Internet and gets onto a computer as an unintended consequence of the user's actions.

It does not apply to software, such as keystroke loggers, that may be installed deliberately by an intruder who has hands-on access to the computer, or who has been able to take control of it remotely. That threat is in a different category, and there's no easy way to defend against it. AV software is not intended to, and does not, defend against such attacks.

The comment is long because the issue is complex. The key points are in sections 5 and 11.

OS X now implements three layers of built-in protection specifically against malware, not counting runtime protections such as file quarantine, execute disable, sandboxing, system integrity protection, system library randomization, and address space layout randomization that may also guard against other kinds of exploits.

2. All versions of OS X since 10.6.7 have been able to detect known Mac malware in downloaded files, and to block insecure web plugins. This feature is transparent to the user. Internally Apple calls it "XProtect."

The malware recognition database used by XProtect is automatically updated; however, you shouldn't rely on it, because the attackers are always at least a day ahead of the defenders.

The following caveats apply to XProtect:

☞ It can be bypassed by some third-party networking software, such as BitTorrent clients and Java applets.

☞ It only applies to software downloaded from the network. Software installed from a CD or other media is not checked.

As new versions of OS X are released, it's not clear whether Apple will indefinitely continue to maintain the XProtect database of older versions such as 10.6. The security of obsolete system versions may eventually be degraded. Security updates to the code of obsolete systems will stop being released at some point, and that may leave them open to other kinds of attack besides malware.

3. Starting with OS X 10.7.5, there has been a second layer of built-in malware protection, designated "Gatekeeper" by Apple. By default, applications and Installer packages downloaded from the network will only run if they're digitally signed by a developer with a certificate issued by Apple. Software certified in this way hasn't been checked for security by Apple unless it comes from the App Store, but you can be reasonably sure that it hasn't been modified by anyone other than the developer. His identity is known to Apple, so he could be held legally responsible if he distributed malware. That may not mean much if the developer lives in a country with a weak legal system (see below.)

Gatekeeper doesn't depend on a database of known malware. It has, however, the same limitations as XProtect, and in addition the following:

☞ It can easily be disabled or overridden by the user.

☞ A malware attacker could find a way around it, or could get control of a code-signing certificate under false pretenses, or could simply ignore the consequences of distributing codesigned malware.

☞ An App Store developer could find a way to bypass Apple's oversight, or the oversight could fail due to human error.

Apple has taken far too long to revoke the codesigning certificates of some known abusers, thereby diluting the value of Gatekeeper and the Developer ID program. Those lapses don't involve App Store products, however.

For the reasons given, App Store products, and—to a lesser extent—other applications recognized by Gatekeeper as signed, are safer than others, but they can't be considered absolutely safe. "Sandboxed" applications may prompt for access to private data, such as your contacts, or for access to the network. Think before granting that access. Sandbox security is based on user input. Never click through any request for authorization without thinking.

4. Starting with OS X 10.8.3, a third layer of protection has been added: a "Malware Removal Tool" (MRT). MRT runs automatically in the background. It checks for, and removes, malware that matches a recognition database maintained by Apple. To ensure that MRT will run when that database is updated, open the App Store pane in System Preferences and check the box marked

Install system data files and security updates

if it's not already checked.

Like XProtect, MRT is effective against known threats, but not against unknown ones. It notifies you if it finds malware, but otherwise it has no user interface.

5. The built-in security features of OS X reduce the risk of malware attack, but they are not, and never will be, complete protection. Malware is a problem of human behavior, not machine behavior, and no technological fix alone is going to solve it. Trusting software to protect you will only make you more vulnerable.

The best defense is always going to be your own intelligence. With the possible exception of Java exploits, all known malware circulating on the Internet that affects a fully-updated installation of OS X 10.6 or later takes the form of so-called "Trojan horses," which can only have an effect if the victim is duped into running them. The threat therefore amounts to a battle of wits between you and Internet criminals. If you're better informed than they think you are, you'll win. That means, in effect, that you always stay within a safe harbor of computing practices. How do you know when you're leaving the safe harbor? Below are some warning signs of danger.

Software from an untrustworthy source

☞ Software with a corporate brand, such as Adobe Flash Player, doesn't come directly from the developer’s website. Do not trust an alert from any website to update Flash, or your browser, or any other software. A genuine alert that Flash is outdated and blocked is shown on this support page. Follow the instructions on the support page in that case. Otherwise, assume that the alert is fake and someone is trying to scam you into installing malware. If you see such alerts on more than one website, ask for instructions.

☞ Software of any kind is distributed via BitTorrent, or Usenet, or on a website that also distributes pirated music or movies.

☞ Rogue websites such as CNET Download, MacUpdate, Soft32, Softonic, and SourceForge distribute free applications that have been packaged in a superfluous "installer."

☞ The software is advertised by means of spam or intrusive web ads. Any ad, on any site, that includes a direct link to a download should be ignored.

Software that is plainly illegal or does something illegal

☞ High-priced commercial software such as Photoshop is "cracked" or "free."

☞ An application helps you to infringe copyright, for instance by circumventing the copy protection on commercial software, or saving streamed media for reuse without permission. All "YouTube downloaders" are in this category, though not all are necessarily malicious.

Conditional or unsolicited offers from strangers

☞ A telephone caller or a web page tells you that you have a “virus” and offers to help you remove it. (Some reputable websites did legitimately warn visitors who were infected with the "DNSChanger" malware. That exception to this rule no longer applies.)

☞ A web site offers free content such as video or music, but to use it you must install a “codec,” “plug-in,” "player," "downloader," "extractor," or “certificate” that comes from that same site, or an unknown one.

☞ You win a prize in a contest you never entered.

☞ Someone on a message board such as this one is eager to help you, but only if you download an application of his choosing.

☞ A "FREE WI-FI !!!" network advertises itself in a public place such as an airport, but is not provided by the management.

☞ Anything online that you would expect to pay for is "free."

Unexpected events

☞ A file is downloaded automatically when you visit a web page, with no other action on your part. Delete any such file without opening it.

☞ You open what you think is a document and get an alert that it's "an application downloaded from the Internet." Click Cancel and delete the file. Even if you don't get the alert, you should still delete any download that isn't what you expected it to be.

☞ An application does something you don't expect, such as asking for permission to access your contacts, your location, or the Internet for no obvious reason.

☞ Software is attached to email that you didn't request, even if it comes (or seems to come) from someone you trust.

I don't say that leaving the safe harbor just once will necessarily result in disaster, but making a habit of it will weaken your defenses against malware attack. Any of the above scenarios should, at the very least, make you uncomfortable.

6. Java on the Web (not to be confused with JavaScript, to which it's not related, despite the similarity of the names) is a weak point in the security of any system. Java is, among other things, a platform for running complex applications in a web page. That was always a bad idea, and Java's developers have proven themselves incapable of implementing it without also creating a portal for malware to enter. Past Java exploits are the closest thing there has ever been to a Windows-style virus affecting OS X. Merely loading a page with malicious Java content could be harmful.

Fortunately, client-side Java on the Web is obsolete and mostly extinct. Only a few outmoded sites still use it. Try to hasten the process of extinction by avoiding those sites, if you have a choice. Forget about playing games or other non-essential uses of Java.

Java is not included in OS X 10.7 and later. Discrete Java installers are distributed by Apple and by Oracle (the developer of Java.) Don't use either one unless you need it. Most people don't. If Java is installed, disable itnot JavaScript—in your browsers.

Regardless of version, experience has shown that Java on the Web can't be trusted. If you must use a Java applet for a task on a specific site, enable Java only for that site in Safari. Never enable Java for a public website that carries third-party advertising. Use it only on well-known, login-protected, secure websites without ads. In Safari 6 or later, you'll see a padlock icon in the address bar when visiting a secure site.

7. Another perennial weak point is Adobe Flash Player. Like Java, Flash is in well-deserved decline, but Flash content is still much more widespread than Java content on the Web. If you choose to install the Flash plugin, you can reduce your exposure to Flash by checking the box marked

Stop plug-ins to save power

in Advanced tab of the Safari preferences window, if it's not already checked. Consider also installing a Safari extension such as "ClickToFlash" or "ClickToPlugin." They will prevent Flash content from loading automatically, and will also cause non-Flash video to be substituted for Flash on YouTube and maybe some other sites. I've tested those extensions and found them safe, but you should always do your own research before deciding whether to trust any third-party software.

8. Stay within the safe harbor, and you’ll be as safe from malware as you can practically be. The rest of this comment concerns what you should not do to protect yourself.

Never install any AV or "Internet security" products for the Mac if you have a choice, as they are all worse than useless. If you're required by a (mistaken) institutional policy to install some kind of AV, pick one of the free apps in the Mac App Store—nothing else.

Why shouldn't you use AV products?

☞ To recognize malware, the software depends on a database of known threats, which is always at least a day out of date. This technique is a proven failure, as a major AV software vendor has admitted. Most attacks are "zero-day"—that is, previously unknown. Recognition-based AV does not defend against such attacks, and the enterprise IT industry is coming to the realization that traditional AV software is worthless.

☞ The design is usually predicated on the nonexistent threat that malware may be injected at any time, anywhere in the file system. Malware is downloaded from the network; it doesn't materialize from nowhere. In order to meet that nonexistent threat, commercial AV software modifies or duplicates low-level functions of the operating system, which is a waste of resources and a common cause of instability, bugs, and poor performance.

☞ By modifying the operating system, the software may also create weaknessesthat could be exploited by malware attackers.

☞ Most importantly, a false sense of security is dangerous. That fact pertains to all AV software there will ever be, no matter what else changes.

9. A free AV product from the Mac App Store is harmless as long you don't let it delete or move any files. Ignore any warnings it may give you about "heuristics" or "phishing." Those warnings, if they're not merely false positives, refer to the text of email messages or cached web pages, not to malware.

An AV app is not needed, and can't be relied upon, for protection against OS X malware. It's useful, if at all, only for detecting Windows malware, and even for that use it's not really effective, because new Windows malware is emerging much faster than OS X malware.

Windows malware can't harm you directly (unless, of course, you use Windows.) Just don't pass it on to anyone else. A malicious attachment in email is usually easy to recognize by the name alone. An actual example:

London Terror Moovie.avi [124 spaces] Checked By Norton Antivirus.exe

You don't need software to tell you that's a Windows trojan. Software may be able to tell you which trojan it is, but who cares? In practice, there's no reason to use recognition software unless an organizational policy requires it. Windows malware is so widespread that you should assume it's in every email attachment until proven otherwise. Nevertheless, a free AV product from the App Store may serve a purpose if it satisfies an ill-informed network administrator who says you must have some kind of AV application. An App Store product won't modify the operating system; in fact, it won't do anything unless you run it.

If you're just curious as to whether a file is recognized as malware by AV engines, you can upload it to the "VirusTotal" website, where it will be tested against most of them at no charge. A negative result is no proof of anything, for the reasons stated above. I don't recommend doing this with a file that might contain private information.

10. It seems to be a common belief that the built-in Application Firewall acts as a barrier to infection, or prevents malware from functioning. It does neither. It blocks inbound connections to certain network services you're running, such as file sharing. It's disabled by default and you should leave it that way if you're behind a router on a private home or office network. Activate it only when you're on an untrusted network, for instance a public Wi-Fi hotspot, where you don't want to provide services. Disable any services you don't use in the Sharing preference pane. All are disabled by default.

11. As a Mac user, you don't have to live in fear that your computer may be infected every time you install software, read email, or visit a web page. But neither can you assume that you will always be safe from exploitation, no matter what you do. Navigating the Internet is like walking the streets of a big city. It can be as safe or as dangerous as you choose to make it. The greatest harm done by AV software is precisely its selling point: it makes people feel safe. They may then feel safe enough to take risks from which the software doesn't protect them. Nothing can lessen the need for safe computing practices.

Jan 22, 2016 5:53 PM in response to psgoatman

This is a comment on OpenDNS and other public domain-name system (DNS) services, such as Google DNS. You should use such a service if it solves a problem for you, and not if it creates problems you don't already have. To summarize:

☞ Using public DNS will probably not make your network faster, and may make it slower.

☞ It will probably not stop your browser from being redirected when you try to connect to a valid web address.

☞ It will not make you safer from malware attacks.

☞ It could cause confidential information to be compromised.

☞ It has other privacy implications that you should be aware of.

A DNS server resolves the human-readable "domain name" of an Internet host, such as www.apple.com, to the numerical address by which that host can be reached. The process is analogous to looking up a phone number by name. There is no chance that changing the DNS server you use will have any effect on a network problem not related to name resolution.

There are two valid reasons why you might want to use a public DNS service:

☞ The DNS servers provided by your ISP are misconfigured (perhaps deliberately) or don't perform well.

☞ You have a use for the filtering controls provided by OpenDNS and others.

Although some DNS services are touted as responding faster than others, there will be no noticeable difference if your ISP is delivering what you pay for. Most likely, the difference in response time among the DNS servers available to you is on the order of a hundredth of a second or less. But under some conditions, public DNS will significantly slow down network performance. Here is a case in point.

A content-distribution network (CDN), such as the one used by Apple to deliver software updates and iTunes content, relies on the location of the DNS server to optimize performance. If your query goes to a distant server, you may get slow downloads of Apple content, among other things. From the report of a test carried out by a networking consultant:

We listed 9 CDNs that would benefit from supporting/using edns-client-subnet, and only two actually support edns-client-subnet: CDN77 and ChinaCache. Others, including Akamai, Internap and CDNetworks, do not currently. This really is too bad, because from the performance data we collected, it is clear these CDNs deliver (much) worse performance currently in many countries to Google DNS and OpenDNS users.

Another reason often given for using public DNS is to avoid "redirection," that is, false results from a query for a valid domain name. Ethical ISP's do not intentionally redirect valid DNS queries, though it might happen unintentionally because of a misconfiguration; for example, because the address of a network host has recently changed, or because of a "poisoning" attack on the DNS server. Note that many ISP's may, and OpenDNS certainly will, redirect invalid queries to ad sites, in violation of published standards for DNS.

Recently, a few low-quality commercial ISP's such as "CenturyLink" have taken to deliberately redirecting DNS queries for some domains, such as search engines. Do not tolerate this practice. If your ISP is doing it, then you should demand that the redirection be stopped, or else switch to another ISP.

Some ISP's have been said to route all DNS queries to their own name servers, regardless of where the queries were directed—another intolerable practice. I haven't heard that any commercial ISP is now doing this, but if yours is, you won't be able to use a public DNS service, even if you change the network settings on your computer or router.

Of course, if your Internet access is provided by an employer or institution, rather than by a commercial ISP, then you have to take whatever you get.

The claims on the OpenDNS website that it blocks malware attacks are false advertising. A DNS service does not and cannot block anything. All it can do is to selectively refuse to answer queries. It's trivial for a malware attacker to evade such controls. It's just as easy to evade the parental controls offered by OpenDNS. Nevertheless, you may find those control features useful, despite their limitations. Here is an example of an ASC user who had undesirable results from OpenDNS content filtering.

If you need to switch DNS providers because of a misconfiguration of your ISP's servers, the change will most likely only need to be temporary. The problem may be resolved automatically within a matter of hours.

If you're considering whether to use public DNS, such as OpenDNS, on a long-term basis, you should take into account the privacy implications. As a user of the free service, you are not an OpenDNS customer, and the service provider—a for-profit corporation—doesn't have a contract with you. The marketers to whom OpenDNS sells access and information are its customers.

OpenDNS will know, and store, the address of every Internet server you use. This is from its privacy policy:

When you use our Services, OpenDNS stores certain DNS, IP address and related information about you to improve the quality of our Service, to provide you with Services and for internal business and analysis purposes.

Concerning personal information, the policy states:

...[I]t is disclosed to entities that perform marketing services on our behalf or to other entities with whom we have joint marketing agreements...

You can't opt out of those disclosures. Read the privacy policy carefully and draw your own conclusions. The privacy policy of Google DNS seems to be somewhat more benign, but again, you should judge for yourself.

That's not the worst of it, though. The practice of hijacking nonexistent domains followed by most public DNS services could result in leaking confidential information to a hacker:

For example, consider the "same origin trust model" used for Web cookies. If you're holding a cookie for GOOGLE.COM and you can be fooled into following a link to KJHSDFKJHSKJHMJHER.GOOGLE.COM, and the resulting NXDOMAIN response is remapped into a positive answer to some advertising server, then you're going to send your cookie to that advertising server when you send your HTTP GET request there. Not such a bad thing for a GOOGLE.COM cookie, but a real problem for a BANKOFAMERICA.COM cookie.

NXDOMAIN remapping is not something that only happens when you randomly mistype a domain name. It can be exploited deliberately by malicious links placed on any web page. In the case of OpenDNS, the result would be that a cookie intended for another server would be sent to the OpenDNS web server instead. A rogue OpenDNS employee, or anyone who managed to break into the web server, might then be able to impersonate you on another website. If this scenario seems far-fetched, it's the stuff that network exploits are made of.

See also a brief, and somewhat outdated, critique of OpenDNS on a Harvard Law School blog, with a response from the company's founder.

May 1, 2016 7:27 PM in response to Linc Davis

Linc, thank you for sharing a very detailed and informative post. Please forgive me if I missed this on your post but if can users on El Capitan get malware if they open an email on the Mac Email client but did not open the attachment? I opened an email using the MacBook Pro El Capitan Mail client and deleted it as soon as I thought it was suspicious (did not click on the attachment). US CERT virus website says "If your email client allows scripting, then it is possible to get a virus by simply opening a message. It's best to limit what HTML is available in your email messages.". I view my emails on the email client as HTML (not plain text). I thought the email was suspicious when I opened the email and the To: field did not have my email address on it but a suspicious email with one word that looked like it could have been one of my email accounts. Hope this makes sense.

May 1, 2016 8:13 PM in response to yvonne_t

yvonne_t wrote:


if can users on El Capitan get malware if they open an email on the Mac Email client but did not open the attachment?

In case Linc has stopped monitoring this, I'll tell you what I know.


Currently there have not been any known instances of OS X infection by simply opening and reading an e-mail. The only danger is if you click on a link that takes you to a fake phishing page which asks you for privacy information and you provide it or if, as you say, you open an attachment. Almost all malware attachments are designed to infect Windows users, so even there you probably won't cause any harm, but if you can't positively identify and trust the sender, don't take a chance.

Need both ClamXav and opendns for virus protection?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.