Why Do People Think MAC OSX Has Built-in AV?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Brandonn2010, Jun 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Apple . . . :D
    The hype company d00d.
     
  2. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    There was some speculation SnowLeopard (Apple's current Mac operating system) can/could detect malware when it was released, but as far as I've read, it was only able to detect 2 threats, far less than the number of OSX malware in the wild. I haven't read anything recent about it though, so perhaps it may have been speculation and pulled, or still there, only crap - as they took so long to acknowledge let alone fix the fakeAV problem its users had for weeks.

    The intricate details and processing of it I do not know, but the following URLs indicated SnowLeopard had the ability:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...rovides-virus-protection-snow-leopard-upgrade
    http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2009/08/28/snow-leopard-malware-protection/ (57 seconds into the video shows the malware being blocked by Apple)
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/snow_leopard_malware_protection/
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/apple-adds-malware-blocker-in-snow-leopard/4104
    http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/08/yes_snow_leopard_includes_anti.php

    I wouldn't trust it though as in the recent FakeAV spat Apple took too long to acknowledge the problem (typical Apple behaviour really) and release a fix. It also misses many OSX malware as far as I've read.
     
  3. davemuth

    davemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2
    Generally, folks are wrong when they think OS X has built-in AV. But the thing that saves them is that so far, there haven't been any widespread problems with Mac Users and malware...as far as is generally known.

    Most of these people have either directly experienced malware/anti-malware related problems while using MS Windows, or they know plenty of other people who have. It's easy to see why people might misunderstand things, and jump to incorrect conclusions.

    Although the OS X version most everyone uses does not have AV built-in, the server version of Mac OS X DOES have AV "built-in". It's ClamAV, and it's configured for the email server.

    Also, Apple has had some anti-malware included in some of their products.
     
  4. Jose_Lisbon

    Jose_Lisbon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Posts:
    245
    Location:
    Portugal
    If I was a malware writer I would target Macs.

    1 the users are affluent (that's why they pay so much more for the white toys)
    2 the users are ignorant about security related issues (that's why they pay so much more for the white toys)
    3 the users are gullible (that's why they pay so much more for the white toys)
     
  5. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    If I were a malware writer I'd target windows... because that's where all of the money is.

    edit: And if you want to talk about OSX pricing you should make a separate topic. They're not nearly as unfairly priced as they used to be.
     
  6. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    a clamav scanning agent for the MTA is a far cry from what the OP is discussing. if it's like every *nix build of clam, you pipe attachments through it as they're received, it scans and passes to the files to user mailboxes. not really comparable to "built-in AV" as in the context of this thread.
     
  7. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    Another big possibility is that people are looking way too much on comparing the same screen sizes, same hardware etc. when it's not about that. I personally believe that is the biggest reason. It's not even close about the screen size and/or hardware - it's about the OS. People just seem to ignore this or simply not think about it.

    My two cents
     
  8. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    A lot of it is the hardware though. You won't find a PC with battery life like a mac unless it's lacking in some other area. PC's just aren't built that way. And if they ever are (specific cases like Envy or some Samsungs and ThinkPads) they too are sold at a high premium.

    Operating systems have too many variables and subjective traits. It's impossible to compare.
     
  9. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    is not easier target to a mac user with no security measures for your money needs?
     
  10. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Uh, no. Do you know of any major corporations running OSX?
     
  11. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    your money needs are bigger!...lol
     
  12. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Well if we're talking purely about potential profit why would I go after Grandma and her savings and brand new Macbook Pro when there's Giant Corporation X running Windows XP?
     
  13. Jose_Lisbon

    Jose_Lisbon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Posts:
    245
    Location:
    Portugal
    Yes, it is.

    No, it isn't.
     
  14. Jose_Lisbon

    Jose_Lisbon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Posts:
    245
    Location:
    Portugal
    Macs are nothing more than marketing products.
    The hardware is the same as in a Toshiba or an Asus.
    The OS brings nothing more than Windows does; in fact it brings less.

    But, please, spend your money where your heart is... the Mac experience
     
  15. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Can you back that statement up? I realize they're all manufactured in the same place but find me specs in a PC that meet up with a Mac.

    laptop*

    and take battery life into account... people always forget to...
     
  16. Espresso

    Espresso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Posts:
    976
  17. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567

    You misunderstood. The OS - Mac OS that is - is utilizing its hardware resources better than Windows will ever do. That's what I've understood, and it makes sense. They employ these performance features and go into detail on them in their release notes, and Mac OS X runs on specific hardware, now why could that be... well I think it's because then they can utilize that specific hardware to its limit!

    There you go
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,064
    is there any evidence that supports that OSX makes better use of hardware than linux,bsd,windows or anyother operating system?

    since the intel transition the only real difference between mac and pc is the actual packaging of the hardware and shipped operating system.

    pc and mac both use intel processers and eiether intel,amd or nvidia graphics.

    in theory OSX should be more stable because apple only supplies a limited set of hardware.

    the problem with apple is that they dont support their os for very long.

    apple should be able to provide longer os support because of a limited range of models. im shocked that osx lion wont work on the first set of intel core processers. other operating systems have no issues working on those processers. imo its just another way to fob off people to buy a new mac.
     
  19. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    I get your point, but what in YOUR opinion is a long support-cycle?
     
  20. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
  21. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    Nice one. :D I still run it as we speak but for very many compatibility reasons, I think W7 is a great OS as well. :D
     
  22. Blueshoes

    Blueshoes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    226
    I re read the article, and I don't think it is ridiculous.
     
  23. Blueshoes

    Blueshoes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    226
    Update about OS X Lion. It appears now the many corporate pentesters I listen to have said that OS X Lion is finally now safer then Windows 7. Lion finally gave us true memory randomization and some other security tweaks that one pentester said he is having a hard time hacking into, were he could just walk right in on Leopard and Snow Leopard. Even Charlie Miller thinks Lion took a leap forward on security.

    Good to see that with the acquisition of David Rice and the prodding of Charlie Miller Apple has finally moved to increase security of OS X. Security was always last on Apples plate of things to add to OS X.
     
  24. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Isn't it simply ASLR? Windows has that. Any it's programatically avoidable/ bypassable.

    The idea behind ASLR, DEP, SEHOP... they're all just trying to reduce the sheer vast number of exploits. It's wonderful and I love them but it only takes a single proper exploit to gain access to the system. Rather than attempting to remove as many exploits as possible they should be (and this applies to all OS's) expecting their systems to be exploited and then adding in measures that deal with exploits.

    Sandboxing is one such mechanism. Even if you exploit an application or the system if everything is separated and has no access the exploit is severely limited.

    There are other security methods.

    Still, as I said, ASLR is great.
     
  25. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    About time. Too bad it`s bloated (ex. 2 GB min RAM lol) though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.