Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says Macs Are Safe, No Antivirus Needed
lobridge writes "Over the last two days multiple news feeds (and Slashdot) have been reporting that Apple has been quietly recommending antivirus software for their machines. It appears now that Apple has deleted an entry on their forums that suggested this and are saying that Mac computers are 'safe out of the box.'"
First, that article had been there for quite some time (but was just updated in the last week of November, when the IT press noticed it), and was just a generic recommendation for antivirus software on Mac OS X, and pointed at some third parties who provide such software. Second, the representative did NOT say "No Antivirus Needed"; on the contrary, the representative said antivirus software offers additional protection.
Antivirus software has always been recommended in our environment on all systems, including Mac OS X. But the very real fact is that -- for whatever reasons, many of which can be argued to no end -- Macs have far less problems with malware and serious security vulnerabilities that have a real impact on users.
As Macs are increasingly used in mixed environments, antivirus software is always prudent, as Mac antivirus software also recognizes and captures Windows viruses in addition to Mac, stopping inadvertent spread. For example, Symantec's full array of virus definitions for Windows and Mac OS are included in the definitions on both platforms.
Malware exists for Mac OS X (and Mac OS before), and always has in various forms. Nearly all of them -- even the recent highly publicized cases -- are trojans requiring deliberate user interaction, and have no mechanism for mass-propagation. The proliferation of hardware- and software-based firewalls and other changes have helped the situation on all platforms.
Porn video codec trojans requiring user interaction -- even as their prevalence increases as Mac marketshare grows -- do not rise to the level of vulnerabilities potentially allowing remote administrative control of all versions of Windows without any user interaction or knowledge, nor the massive worms of old costing untold manhours and untold billions in recovery and lost productivity.
Macs have very real security problems, and Macs have malware specifically targeted at the platform. But for a variety of reasons, Mac OS X is, in a very real sense, a more secure computing platform with respect to malware. This does not mean there are not legitimate concerns and gripes, does not mean Apple has made some poor decisions with respect to security, and does not excuse gloating fanboys.
But frankly, Mac users always should have been running some kind of antivirus software, even if only to prevent unknowing propagation of Windows malware, and institutions such as ours have recommended this as policy for years. But since Apple updated a knowledgebase article, and since the trend has been to give an inordinate level of coverage to any Mac security issue, however minor, I'm sure this will continue to be melodramatically blown out of proportion.
Macs have far less problems with "malware" and related issues than Windows. Not all of this is only due to marketshare. Some is due to changing strategies of malware writers, new attacks on browsers and other cross-platform applications, increased attention to network security, better user education, and number of other factors. But even as Mac marketshare grows and the platform is increasingly targeted, there still have not been any high-impact massive issues with malware and/or severe security vulnerabilities as there have been on Windows.
Apple has come a long way on security response from its attitudes even a couple of years ago, and still has a long way to go. But if a benign recommendation for AV software get blown up into a huge issue with media extrapolating that this must mean Apple is under heavy attack, and indeed, Apple may even be aware of an impending flood of malware, I'm not surprised Apple responded by simply pulling the article altogether. The perception in the marketplace is that Macs have a lot less problems with malware. That's completely accurate. Why would Apple want that correct perception tarnished by a bunch of sensationalism?
I mean is there? Anti-virus programs work by looking for specific code. If that code doesn't exists yet what does it look for? Windows viruses?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Lately I've seen a few of these posts on various sites. I think it's the case of Apple being big enough and successful enough over the past few years that they fall into the same category as Google, Microsoft, etc.: no longer a cute underdog, no longer immune from attacks. There's always been some anti-Apple sentiment ("one button mouse!" etc.), but lately it seems more pointed and directed, more tactical.
-- http://ninthagenda.com/
Whoa...hold on there,son. The fact that they publish security updates proves them wrong.
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand. A relative few will still get infected before the AV industry can react, but the rest will be safe as soon as a definition update appears that detects the threat.
something that Apple politically couldn't say: Mac antivirus software primarily protects against Windows viruses
Considering that Apple runs ads that directly state that "PCs" get viruses whereas "Macs" do not, I don't see why they would mind saying roughly the same thing in a tech note.* Seems to me that they have already taken a pretty visible stance on that political issue.
That having been said, I suspect you are right: once this whole issue blew up, it was safer to completely distance themselves from the original tech note, rather than try and explain why they had originally issued it.
[*] Conceivably the tech note was written by some lower-level employee who didn't want to say something controversial. So instead he/she left it vague and just suggested that "antivirus is a good idea" and so on.
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand.
People have been saying the same damn thing for 8 years. "Just wait, one day OS X will get a virus. You'll see."
Ok, well, after hearing this for almost a decade I'm kinda starting to get skeptical.
So it is unlikely that people with things to say have no desire to be complete and accurate in their thoughts, ideas and expressions? It only takes one quick generalization before people start blasting you with "that's not true because it's not true for me."
While there may be some moments when it is possible to be both brief, accurate and complete, I would suggest that those moments are the exception and not the rule. Just as with your short conclusion, it is completely presumptive and incorrect. I would be neither on Apple's payroll nor in a basement if I were to have responded in similar fashion. Your mind has been dulled by 30 minute episodes and 10 minute commercial breaks.
C'mon apple, get real!
Everyone needs anti-virus software these days!
Apple, Linux, *BSD and Unix included.
I don't care what apple or anyone else says, you need all the protection you can get.
I have been using anti-virus software on *nix systems for years and will continue to do so.
Semper Fi!
Puh lease. For years there were far more Apache installations and they didn't get ass-raped the way IIS did/does.
It has nothing to do with installation base and far more to do with idiot coding practices.
A) The idea that Windows only gets compromised because of its large market share isn't firmly founded. Even if you think it's true, it's far from being widely accepted.
B) Even if OSX becomes just as frequently compromised as Windows, it still doesn't make sense to buy an Antivirus program now. Most AV packages rely on databases of known-viruses, and aren't very effective against new/unknown viruses. Therefore, even if you have AV software for your Mac, they won't detect any threats until after they're known. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to bother to install anything until after there are known threats for OSX, and there aren't any yet.
So mostly, installing AV software on OSX will just use up resources and *maybe* help to protect Windows machines you're trading files with.
Also, I don't know about you, but I evaluate AV software before I buy it for what's most efficient and effective at the time when I buy it. Until there are real threats against OSX, there's no way to measure how effective it is at protecting you from those threats, so there's nothing to recommend one package over another except for what uses the least resources. And do you know what uses the least resources? Having no AV software installed.
The point I think he's trying to make is that, as of yet anyhow, OS X viruses and malware have to be explicitly let in through the front door via user stupidity (or just plain ignorance/don't know better). On the other hand, MS's track record has shown numerous ways for software to sneak onto your machine without user intervention whatsoever.
I personally think that OSX's sudo password prompt needs to be beefed up to show exactly what the app is attempting to access. If I'm installing some app that wants to add a file to /usr/bin, sure. If it wants to REMOVE a file I'd be a lot of more suspicious. As of right now both cases will simply show a nondescript "enter admin password" prompt, which is insufficient.