Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 35044113)

They do get viruses, but fewer Mac viruses exist than PC viruses.

As for the "stealth patch", tbh, it looks like nothing more than a definition update. No different to what Sophos themselves do regularly.

Originally Posted by vanman (Post 35044133)

Originally Posted by samantha666 (Post 35044231)

my mac address keeps going down i need mac addresses to try

Originally Posted by samantha666 (Post 35044231)

my mac address keeps going down i need mac addresses to try

Originally Posted by vanman (Post 35044106)

Macs never get viruses
ha ok!

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2265058/...alth-patch-fix

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35044737)

Only popularity will tell ;)

If MACOS was 100% clear of virii then I would state it was more secure, but it's not :p:

Originally Posted by Enigma776 (Post 35046744)

Thats about to change now that steam is on the Mac platform, the world and their wife will knockup keylogers and trojans just to get account details.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35048924)

I have one. It never has. It has never had any AV software on it either.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35049088)

Which documented Mac virus do you have in mind?

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35049108)

Can't name specifics but I don't see that being relevant. Most trojan or back door viruses and their variants Are designed not to cause system disruption until used, as any abnormal system behaviour would alert the user and that is counter productive.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35049125)

It's very relevant. You suggest I don't know I've never been infected, and postulate that my system could be infected by malware that wouldn't cause abnormal behaviour, such that I wouldn't know it was there.

Your entire reasoning is based on your assumption that such malware even exists for the Mac. Hence my request that you justify that assumption.

Originally Posted by Lew (Post 35049145)

That's a trojan, not a virus..

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35048924)

I have one. It never has. It has never had any AV software on it either.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35049196)

Just to point out if someone claimed this about a Windows machine you would have extremely strong doubts. Claiming a machine that has never had AV software on it has never been infected by anything is a stretch regardless of the OS it runs.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35049288)

Not if there is very few viruses documented for an OS it isn't..

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35049319)

Nope still most unwise to assume anything, even if the balance of probabilities is in your favour. What's assumption the mother of Damien? ;)

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35048970)

Since you don't have any av how do you know? not alll viruses causes wierd system behaviour.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35050446)

... and yet many thousands of us do, and have done so for many years. You need to get yourself out of the Windows mindset, it's obviously bad for you and causing you to be paranoid. ;)

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35049319)

... What's assumption the mother of Damien? ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35049331)

...Don't get your last sentence.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35050446)

... and yet many thousands of us do, and have done so for many years. You need to get yourself out of the Windows mindset, it's obviously bad for you and causing you to be paranoid. ;)

Originally Posted by Toto (Post 35050497)

I think not having recognised AV software on a Mac is foolish today.

Originally Posted by looper35uk (Post 35048836)

Just out of Interest has anyone with a Mac on here ever had a virus.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35049196)

Just to point out if someone claimed this about a Windows machine you would have extremely strong doubts. Claiming a machine that has never had AV software on it has never been infected by anything is a stretch regardless of the OS it runs.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35050446)

... and yet many thousands of us do, and have done so for many years. You need to get yourself out of the Windows mindset, it's obviously bad for you and causing you to be paranoid. ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35050454)

Indeed. However Windows has gotten much, much better at security issues. Hence why I feel safe not to install a anti-virus as long as my firewall is up. (And being careful who I open attachments from). This is the same policy I have on my Mac, firewall up and no virus scanner.

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35050492)

You say paranoid, I say prepared. How would you propose you would get rid of an infection on your mac after it is there? Most AV wont run on a compromised system so you then rely on system restores, OS reinstalls etc. If the virus becomes widespread enough you may be able to get a standalone utility that will clean up but its all a bit excessive when all you need to do is take your head out of the sand.
And I think you will find the windows virus culture is spread by windows users in the same mindset as yourself. Those who use up to-date AV certainly wont be vulnerable to infection.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35050495)

To be honest MACs don't have a problem because they are too expensive and therefore don't have the market share that Windows machines have.

I'd love a Mac but I just cannot justify the cost..:(

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051070)

either your taking the pee or you have no idea about computers, in case its the latter just because something is expensive doesnt make it good.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35050498)

Now, that's a tad unfair Maggy. 'Apple' is an individual company, 'windows machines' is a nebulous category that takes in any number of other individual companies.

Apple is one of the biggest computer manufacturers in the world. It has long been in the top five, measured by units shipped. Earlier this year, only HP, Dell, Tosh and Acer were selling more units than Apple. That means that all the other PC-manufacturing companies were, individually, selling fewer units.

There are all sorts of reasons why Windows machines collectively outsell Mac OSX machines. Hardware cost is only one of them. Historically, Apple decided not to copy IBM and licence its architecture. Considering that it remains a vast and profitable company without having had to commoditize and therefore lose control over one of its key products, I'd say in the long term they probably made the right decision.

Apple sets a price for its products that reflects the design, build and brand image that it wants to project. It has created an incredibly cool image for itself - this in turn helps it to sell its cheaper products, i.e. iPod and iPhone, to a mass market, as the masses believe they are getting a slice of that coolness.

Now we've got all that out of the way ... to suggest that the only reason they 'don't have a problem' is that relatively few people have them, is just another re-statement of the old 'security from obscurity' argument. One which is often asserted but rarely demonstrated.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------



Well, I don't consider myself to be acting foolishly. 10 years and counting. ;)

When real and credible stories start to hit the press about malware danger for Mac users, I'll reconsider. Until then, I think I'll save my time, money and processing resources.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35051076)

But in this case it does. Macs are pretty good computers!

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051077)

as i said how do uno that your mac is virus free ?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051087)

Prove that it's infected. :shrug:

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051077)

whether they are good or not they are still vulnerable to viruses & changing this topic into a pc vs mac war is not what the op was asking & is pretty pointless imo.

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051070)

either your taking the pee or you have no idea about computers, in case its the latter just because something is expensive doesnt make it good.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051087)

Prove that it's infected. :shrug:

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051070)

sorry but im not in a windows mindset its just that as someone else said how do you even know that your mac is virus free ? no os is 100% secure whether its linux, windows or mac os & to think that it is, is crazy at the end of the day its your computer so do as you please with it.

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------



as i said no os is safe so doing that is pretty silly.

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------



well said.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------



either your taking the pee or you have no idea about computers, in case its the latter just because something is expensive doesnt make it good.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 35051110)

True, if something is expensive that doesn't necessarily make it good. However, something being expensive means it will not achieve the market penetration of cheaper goods regardless of how good it is.

To go off topic for a while, no one would argue that Rolls Royces are not better cars than Fiestas, but they'll never achieve the market share that the Fiesta has, purely because more people can afford a fiesta.

Now, back on topic.

Macs have a far lower market share than PCs. The reason for this is not really relevant, but whatever the reason, the effect is the same. Macs make less attractive targets for virus writers in the wild.

Think of it this way. Imagine you are a virus or trojan writer. You have two platforms you can choose from to write your code for. Windows or OSX. If you write for Windows, you have a chance of infecting 90 odd percent of computer users, and (thanks to Apple's Bootcamp) a good few Mac users. If you write for OSX, you have a chance of infecting (perhaps) 5% of computer users.

Which are you going to go for?


If you write for OSX, you have a chance of in

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051114)

I know it's not likely to be infected but it really does show that people assume their MAC is safe to a point where if a mainstream harmful virus did come out I wonder how many would be caught out??

Just a thought....

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051118)

my point exactly & without AV how would someone know ? not all viruses make your computer act strangely.

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051088)

prove that it isint

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051125)

Correct, but it doesn't mean to say that the system is inected and I'd say that nearly all would be clean.. For now.....

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35050748)

MAC Virii (harmfull ones) have been noted since the early '90s with stuff like COWHAND (early form of open proxy virus) and MBDF (liked to corrupt system files to a point of a reinstall was needed)

Originally Posted by Lew (Post 35051166)

You're talking about viruses for the classic Mac OS there, though. They're not compatible with OS X.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051227)

Oh gawd, I wondered how long it would turn into the Linux against Windows thread :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35051254)

Ah it's been fun up until now.;)

Now it gets deadly serious..:shocked:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35051154)

It makes sense not to have a anti-virus running though. Since no Mac virus is out in the wild, they are all proof of concepts, why bother slowing down your computer?

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 35051122)

Actually, I don't think any platform is 100% safe. It's just that (at the moment) you are far less likely to encounter a virus in the wild running on OSX.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051125)

Correct, but it doesn't mean to say that the system is inected and I'd say that nearly all would be clean.. For now.....

Originally Posted by MadGamer (Post 35051151)

it would be quite easy for Chris, Damien or me to prove that our macs aren't infected by installing a free anti virus program, run a scan then remove said anti virus program to prove your point. ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35051154)

It makes sense not to have a anti-virus running though. Since no Mac virus is out in the wild, they are all proof of concepts, why bother slowing down your computer?

Originally Posted by Ed2020 (Post 35051240)

There are a number of posts in this thread which demonstrate one aspect of AV software that I've always taken issue with - the assumption that if your AV package reports nothing is wrong then nothing is wrong. It gives users a false sense of security. Downloading a free AV package and scanning your Mac, Windows, Unix or Linux box to be told no malware was found absolutely does not mean there is definitely no malware present.

Providing you are exceptionally cautious then browsing the Internet with no AV can be perfectly safe regardless of what OS you choose to use. Of course you'd have to turn off all Javascript, Flash, Silverlight and any other client-side scripting except on sites you 100% trusted, never download anything executable and myriad other measures that would quickly become a major PITA, but it can be done.

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35051289)

Havent had a machine in 5 or 6 years that I could even tell when i have a virus scanner running in the background. Are macs really so resource lacking that you would? :p:

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051292)

im not saying that their computers are infected they might not be, as i said above its impossible to know without having AV.

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051088)

prove that it isint

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy (Post 35051332)

i know that you werent mate & i agree but that doesnt make it 100% secure thats all that im saying.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051333)

Yep, but saying that someone should prove that their MAC isn't infected is assuming guilt ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35051336)

No one is 100% secure. However we weight the risk against the practicality of measures to reduce that risk taking into account cost, hassle, and performance.

I have decided that with the low, if any, amount of Mac viruses spreading though the internet and the fact that I am careful with what I download and the existence of my firewall I do not need an anti-virus.

I don't do it too offend people with my risky behaviour or out of a sense of Mac arrogance. It's just the reality that I am very unlikely to get a virus on OSX in the current climate. I will reassess when the state of virus on the Mac changes but for now, I am not installing a AV on my machine to scan for nothing.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051333)

Yep, but saying that someone should prove that their MAC isn't infected is assuming guilt ;)

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051271)

Nope, it just gets off-topic!!!!

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051351)

I could get tooled up and then go and target the nuclear submarines at Faslane*. Does anyone want to rate my chances of getting past the first guardhouse?

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35051405)

From personal experience of the MoD, if driving a white van and waving a shopping list, actually quite high :D


This thread reminds me of the alleged French attitude to BSE.
We have no BSE
How do you know?
We've never had a case of it.
Do you look for it?
No of course not.
Why not?
We have no BSE

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35051405)

This thread reminds me of the alleged French attitude to BSE.
We have no BSE
How do you know?
We've never had a case of it.
Do you look for it?
No of course not.
Why not?
We have no BSE

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051554)

Then consider me irresponsible if you like. :)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. 10 years virus and AV free, and counting. :)

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35051570)

Promise you will admit it if it happens though..;)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051480)

Actually I think it's more like the British attitude to diseases such as cholera and typhoid. I haven't had a vaccination against either of those for 20-odd years. Does that make me irresponsible towards my own health?

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35051684)

Except there are scans for typhoid and cholera.
Gf is actually waiting for blood results back for typhoid at the moment.
Now we could say "hey the chances are so small why check? never had it before so I don't have it" like you suggest, but we'd rather be safe than sorry.

You can claim you've been virus free for 10 years until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact you're using false logic as you've never looked for infections during those 10 years.

NTL had some servers which were "virus free" except they weren't as you can see of you search el reg.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051732)

On the other hand, there's something more than a little wobbly about your own logic I think. I've never had an HIV test. Is it false for me to claim, beyond reasonable doubt, that I am not HIV+?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051614)

As someone posted earlier, I could go to the trouble of installing software long enough to do a complete sweep, thereby proving the system is clean. But the absolutely tiny amount of malware that can even install itself on OSX simply doesn't justify the effort - hence my analogy with certain vaccinations earlier on. Why get yourself injected against typhoid if you're never going to travel anywhere you can get it?

As for viruses transferred ... what, exactly? And how? jpegs originated on my own camera and edited on my own machine? Word documents originated in NeoOffice in ODT format and saved off as MS .doc? Mpegs created in my copy of iMovie? I'm happy to be educated otherwise, but at the moment my understanding is that none of those poses a credible means of unwittingly transferring any kind of malware to anyone.

You are going to have a very, very hard time convincing me that there is any need to engage the same level of paranoia in keeping my Mac free of nasties as is clearly necessary when managing a Windows-based machine. ;)

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35051759)

With your wobbly logic you would claim you are not HIV+, however you cannot be certain without testing for it, hence the wobbly nature of your logic.
How is it wobbly logic to say "I do not know if I'm HIV+ because I've never had a test" when it's an accurate statement (damn sight more accurate than claiming something is true when it's not been tested).

There is a huge difference between saying "I'm not likely to be infected" and what you've actually claimed which is "I've never been infected in the past 10 years"

Originally Posted by zing (Post 35051769)

Chances are you have never had a virus but without any form of detection you can not say that you are 100% definate you have not only that you believe you have not

Originally Posted by zing (Post 35051769)

You do not need to be paranoid to keep a windows machine clean you need to be careful and clever

Originally Posted by Ed2020 (Post 35051878)

Yep, the weakest point in the security of most computers is the interface between the chair and the keyboard. :)

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35051405)

From personal experience of the MoD, if driving a white van and waving a shopping list, actually quite high :D


This thread reminds me of the alleged French attitude to BSE.
We have no BSE
How do you know?
We've never had a case of it.
Do you look for it?
No of course not.
Why not?
We have no BSE

Originally Posted by Raistlin (Post 35051538)

I've said it before, I'll say it again (and you'll have to trust me when I say that I speak from a position of some knowledge/experience): ANYBODY who is operating a computer that is a) connected to a network of any sort, or b) shares files/resources in any way with any other computer/processing device, and who believes that they don't need an AV program, other malware detection systems, some sort of firewall, proper patching, and proper user access controls, is either incredibly naive or incredibly irresponsible.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 35051759)

With your wobbly logic you would claim you are not HIV+, however you cannot be certain without testing for it, hence the wobbly nature of your logic.
How is it wobbly logic to say "I do not know if I'm HIV+ because I've never had a test" when it's an accurate statement (damn sight more accurate than claiming something is true when it's not been tested).

There is a huge difference between saying "I'm not likely to be infected" and what you've actually claimed which is "I've never been infected in the past 10 years"

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051880)

Totally disagree there.. Weakest point of security is between modem and the internet, cut that wire and 99.999999% of people will never get a virus

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35051880)

Totally disagree there.. Weakest point of security is between modem and the internet, cut that wire and 99.999999% of people will never get a virus

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35051875)

In which case, your wobbly logic is at odds with the entire British justice system. You appear to be conveniently ignoring the concept of reasonable doubt or certainty and hanging your entire argument on the existence of a theoretical risk. A bit pointless, really, seeing as my iMac exists in the real world, not a debating chamber.

Originally Posted by ZrByte (Post 35052009)

Not entirely true..

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35052018)

Well I did say 99.9999% and not 100% ;)