Thanks, may come in handy when I buy a Mac in the future. Even on a Mac I would take security very seriously. On the other hand, most AV's are crap.
Taking security very seriously and running an AV are not synonymous though. I take security very seriously on macOS and Ubuntu, I just don't need an AV.
For MACs, BitDefender & Avast are excellent AVs. Windows has a built-in AV, "Windows Defender." MAC also has a built-in AV: XProtect. I have noticed that, when AV-Comparatives tests Windows AVs, Windows Defender's results are measured & reported along with the other AVs. However, this was not done for the MAC tests. That is, XProtect was excluded, it seems. (Or did I miss something in AV-C's report?) @IBK -- I wonder why AV Comparatives excluded measuring & reporting on the effectiveness of MAC's XProtect in this particular test? ==> @ other MAC users: Is it possible to turn-off XProtect? If NOT, then how can the effectiveness of 3rd party AVs be accurately measured? OR -- if XProtect was not turned-off, does that mean that all the malware detected by 3rd party AVs had first gotten past XProtect UNdetected? @Alec & @Daveski17 -- Reference Alec's excellent summation of MAC's internal security protections in THIS post. I can't help but wonder if AV-C's report means that all the malware blocked by the 3rd party AVs had first-off evaded all of MAC's internal system integrity protections?
I don't honestly know. Maybe the 3rd party AV's got to it first before the macOS system integrity had a chance. I suppose it also depends on the type of malware. Mac or Linux isn't impregnable, but I still don't believe an AV is a solution for a system that is basically more integrally secure in the first place. At first running an OS without an AV seems like driving without a seat-belt or something, but after a while the 'Windows mentality' fades.
I don't believe that XProtect is as advanced as Win Defender. BTW, I've found this interesting article about AV's for the macOS: https://www.safetydetectives.com/best-antivirus/mac/
