Antivirus
I'm looking for the best anti-malware solution for a small enterprise.
I have heard that Symantec Antivirus used to be a real resource hog. Is this still true? Do they have a version available for Mac OS Lion?
BitDefender's website claims it is the #1 ranked AV for Mac. Is that true?
What about Avast?
Any other solutions.
In addition to one of these AV solutions, should I install Little Snitch on my staff's Macs? I have it running myself but it might be a nuisance for those who would not know what to do when Little Snitch flags *anomalous* traffic.
Thank you.
B
Comments
Would, "honestly, don't waste your time with this crap" be a valid answer?
You don't need it. At all. Not in an OS X environment.
For not spreading viruses to PCs? Eh, who knows. I don't know of any virus that can survive a trip through OS X.
AV-Comparatives test results for the best Anti-Virus 2012.
1.G-Data
2. Avira
3. Kaspersky
4. Sophos
5. F.Secure, Panda, Bitdefender, BullGuard and McAfee.
Get the best one out there, multiplatform if possible and with good customer support. Sophos seems to be ok with Mac Os X Lion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Would, "honestly, don't waste your time with this crap" be a valid answer?
You don't need it. At all. Not in an OS X environment.
For not spreading viruses to PCs? Eh, who knows. I don't know of any virus that can survive a trip through OS X.
That seems like questionable advice in view of recent events and also in view of what the "experts" out there are saying, don't you think? I have also ready consistently that OS X does not do more to block viruses than W7, but there are simply fewer hackers going after it. Do you have specific information to contradict this? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
That seems like questionable advice in view of recent events and also in view of what the "experts" out there are saying, don't you think?
Not in the slightest. You put experts in quotes for a reason, you know.
Quote:
I have also ready consistently that OS X does not do more to block viruses than W7, but there are simply fewer hackers going after it. Do you have specific information to contradict this? Thanks.
Yeah, twenty years of people saying the exact same thing while OS 6, 7, 8, 9, and X remain bastions of security. Mac OS 9 had more malware for it than OS X has had, and the former only ever had 2% marketshare.
The Marketshare Myth is a myth. Period. Full stop. OS X is inherently more secure than Windows and will always be. Windows allows crap to download in the background without the user knowing, for heaven's sake. That just doesn't happen on a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not in the slightest. You put experts in quotes for a reason, you know.
Yeah, twenty years of people saying the exact same thing while OS 6, 7, 8, 9, and X remain bastions of security. Mac OS 9 had more malware for it than OS X has had, and the former only ever had 2% marketshare.
The Marketshare Myth is a myth. Period. Full stop. OS X is inherently more secure than Windows and will always be. Windows allows crap to download in the background without the user knowing, for heaven's sake. That just doesn't happen on a Mac.
With all due respect, I'm seeking a more detailed and informed answer than "That just doesn't happen on a Mac", particularly since something did happen 600k Macs. But thanks anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
With all due respect, I'm seeking a more detailed and informed answer than "That just doesn't happen on a Mac"…
The testimony of tens of millions of users over the course of decades isn't good enough?
Quote:
…particularly since something did happen 600k Macs. But thanks anyway.
You don't actually know that. No one does. Those numbers were put out by an anti-virus company.
I'm also humoring you by not mentioning that that was a Java problem and has nothing to do with OS X. No anti-virus software is going to stop a user from being a complete idiot and installing crap on his machine.
OS X won't be responsible for the infection. You will. That is my point. The Java nonsense was a trojan. No OS is safe from the stupidity of its users.
Not every ship hits an iceberg, but it's best to be protected with a double hull in case you do.
Personally, I would recommend either Sophos or ClamXav. I use Sophos on my iMac, although it decided it didn't want to work on my MacBook Air.
But for a small enterprise, I would recommend Sophos.
Sophos is a good anti virus application to use.It is free and dependable.
Both Sophos and Bitdefender offers a good enterprise wide antivirus suites.. comparing the two "free versions for Mac," Bitdefender scans a lot faster than Sophos. The "free" version Sophos offers on-access scanning but not for Bitdefender "free" version , so if you prefer a double edge sword on your Apple Macbook pro, having those 2 installed wont hurt your system a bit.
Anything missed by Sophos, scan it with the faster Bitdefender, works for me..
avast is great. that's what i'm using right now
Well for those that want an antivirus, I use NOD32 on my Macs at school. Its a great client and doesn't slow down the Mac at all.
http://www.eset.com/us/home/products/antivirus-for-mac/
At home, I don't use one. I don't deem is necessary at this point.
With your Mac you never user a anti-virus app at all? Just curious why?
I am interested in the answer and here is the perception I have built looking for an answer:
Things are not black and white. Mac OS X are inherently more secure, yes. Bulletproof, no. Mac OS X has been less hit in the past because it had less marketshare - correct. But it's not only market share. It is ROI: how much effort for the return, and how many automated tools are out there for Mac.
Java is a more likely attack vector on Mac OS X, and hence it is not Mac OS X that is not secure. Yes, Java s weaker, but asking people to turn off Java is not practical, and Mac OS X has its own weakness (plists, ...). All major OSes now implement ASLR and Lion then Mountain have caught up with a better implementation now.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but all antivirus softwares out there seem to be pretty much at par, differentiating slightly on the responsivness to 0-day attacks. Also, most seem to be scanning Windows signature mostly (normal, there are more of them, but not everyone runs Windows on their Mac). Seems like old stuff to me. Are they efficient against browser, acrobat, thumb drives attacks? Rootkits?
Sophos is better? http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/662243 . Now patched, but Sophos, like most antivirus softwares requires root (admin) access to install. This makes them a vector of attack themselves: if hacked/backdoored, they run wlth all the privileges. I think one attack in Mac OS X was a buffer overflow on encrypted PDFs. Now fixed, but that doesn't mean that other weaknesses don't exist.
Bottom-line, there is no easy solution, and no one-size fits all. I personally use Chrome, disable Java, block plug-ins and all I can block while still being functional, and only use Safari on websites I can have higher trust in (intranet mostly).
Hope this helps. Curious to hear your solutions as well.
Thanks - Gilles
Nothing is perfect with any anti virus software. They all have flaws.I have been using SOPHOS for over 1 year and not one virus did I get so far. I scan all my files twice a month.It is free also.