Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 04:50 PM

The stupid Virex program included with .Mac completely blows. A typical report:

Summary report on /Users/my_username/*
File(s)
Total files: ........... 17569
Clean: ................. 17553
Not scanned: ........... 12
Possibly Infected: ..... 1
Non-critical Error(s): 2

Diagnose Scan completed at 2004-02-12 08:09:10 -0500

Great. Why were the 12 files not scanned? Which ones are they? Which file is "possibly infected"? What caused the "non-critical errors"?

What exactly should I do with this info of dubious value?

Vader�s Pinch of Death · Feb 12, 2004, 04:51 PM

Why do you need Virex if there are no OSX virus' anyway?

Steb Mad · Feb 12, 2004, 04:53 PM

selowitch, Virex is free, what more can you complain?

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
Why do you need Virex if there are no OSX virus' anyway?

Normally, I'd agree. But I was curious, and Virex claims I do have at least one file that is possibly infected. I'd sure like to know which one!!

BTW, I love your username. *Sound of deep mechanical breathing*

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Steb Mad:
selowitch, Virex is free, what more can you complain?

Free? Yeah, absolutely free ... with purchase of a $99 .Mac subscription!

Steb Mad · Feb 12, 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by selowitch:
Free? Yeah, free with a $99 .Mac subscription.

Virex + No Viruses Available = Free

BTW, if you want a *REAL* anti-virus software, get Norton AntiVirus instead.

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Steb Mad:
Virex + No Viruses Available = Free

BTW, if you want a *REAL* anti-virus software, get Norton AntiVirus instead.

You're right. But I don't want NAV; I just want stupid Virex to tell me which files on my Mac it thinks has viruses (I know there's at least one), and I'd like it to at least *try* to fix it. Otherwise, the damn thing is just useless.

Developer · Feb 12, 2004, 06:04 PM

You need to turn on detailed result information. You can then copy the results into a text editor and search for the infected files and errors.

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
You need to turn on detailed result information.

I have done this already.

You can then copy the results into a text editor and search for the infected files and errors.

What text string should I search for?

i_wolf · Feb 12, 2004, 06:33 PM

please keep us posted. I was of the opinion that OS X was virus free. Maybe its an infected excel macro or something that it claims is *possibly* infected.
Still, idon't like hearing 'possibly'

Keep us posted!

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by i_wolf:
please keep us posted. I was of the opinion that OS X was virus free. Maybe its an infected excel macro or something that it claims is *possibly* infected.
Still, idon't like hearing 'possibly'
Keep us posted!

Don't worry, I will post back here if and when I find something.

You're generally correct that very, very few viruses are "available" for OS X. After all, they're software too and given the relatively small amount of software available for the Mac ... there are naturally not many viruses.

Developer · Feb 12, 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by selowitch:
I have done this already.

What text string should I search for?

Testing with stuff in my junk mail box it wrote

Found the W32/Sober.c@MM virus !!!

So I guess you may search for "Found" or "!!!". But it doesn't really matter since none of these things affect us anyway. So why bother?

selowitch · 09:54 PM

*oops*

selowitch · Feb 12, 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
Testing with stuff in my junk mail box it wrote

Found the W32/Sober.c@MM virus !!!

So I guess you may search for "Found" or "!!!". But it doesn't really matter since none of these things affect us anyway. So why bother?

It's really a matter of curiosity more than anything else.

Eug Wanker · Feb 12, 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
Why do you need Virex if there are no OSX virus' anyway?

Macs can transmit Windows viruses.

Rev-O · Feb 12, 2004, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Macs can transmit Windows viruses.

and I worry about this because?

djohnson · Feb 12, 2004, 10:36 PM

Sure would hate to give the windows people a virii!!!

Vader�s Pinch of Death · Feb 12, 2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Macs can transmit Windows viruses.

If you purposely forward emails and then... so what. Any Windows user without virus software is an idiot.

voodoo · Feb 13, 2004, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Macs can transmit Windows viruses.

o rly?

typoon · Feb 13, 2004, 09:14 AM

I have it on my machien so I don't send viruses to my Windows friends. An analogy I like to use is. Not having anitvirus software on a PC is like having unprotected sex. You are bound to catch something.

[APi]TheMan · 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Steb Mad:
selowitch, Virex is free, what more can you complain?

A bag of dog crap is free too. At least you can light a bag of dog crap on fire, though.

I guess a better way to look at Virex is like an Amish person buying a G5. It's nice and I'm sure it works and all... but when would he ever need or use it? Virus software on Mac OS X is joke at this point in time; sure Macs can "carry" Windows virii... but then so could a Linux box, or a BeOS box... or a toaster with an internet connection and some e-mail software...

I won't waste my CPU time with Virus software on my Macs.

yukon · Feb 14, 2004, 04:33 AM

I disbelieved at first, but after reading the comments in here, I suppose they were right.

The first MacOS X virus will spread as wildfire on the Macintosh. There are none known yet, but as OS X marketshare grows, the likelihood that we'll get one does increase (correlation not causation, of course). Most mac users open email attachments, there's a feeling of security....

I mean, sure it isn't needed right now, but good for the people who do run a virusscaner, they'll be protected if or when a virus hits. {searches for remaining copy of Disinfectant}

Chuckit · Feb 14, 2004, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by yukon:
I mean, sure it isn't needed right now, but good for the people who do run a virusscaner, they'll be protected if or when a virus hits.

No, they actually won't. Let's say I write a virus write now and send it to you, labelling the virus as some sort of ReadMe file just to make sure you open it. Your virus scanner will not detect it. Why? Because I, as stupid as I am to write a virus for the Mac, am still not stupid enough to tell the antivirus companies about it beforehand, and therefore your antivirus software will not recognize my program as a virus.

Eug · Feb 14, 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
If you purposely forward emails and then... so what. Any Windows user without virus software is an idiot.

And I'm sure he'll really appreciate his Mac friends sending viruses to him.

Originally posted by Chuckit:
No, they actually won't. Let's say I write a virus write now and send it to you, labelling the virus as some sort of ReadMe file just to make sure you open it. Your virus scanner will not detect it. Why? Because I, as stupid as I am to write a virus for the Mac, am still not stupid enough to tell the antivirus companies about it beforehand, and therefore your antivirus software will not recognize my program as a virus.

According to that logic, all virus software is useless then.

Originally posted by djohnson:
Sure would hate to give the windows people a virii!!!

Pet peeve: "Virii" is not a word. The correct plural is "viruses". BTW, "a virii" makes even less sense, since "virii" is only ever used (incorrectly) as a plural of "virus".

AppleCello · Feb 14, 2004, 06:53 AM

additionally, any installed software will require an administrator password.

Patrick

yukon · Feb 14, 2004, 02:44 PM

RE: Virri
Yeah, the Warez/Hackzz0rz scene labeled them Virri. With actual physical viruses, it's the correct pluralization, but some people argue that "Virri" is proper for computer viruses, because that's how they were pluralized in the beginning and apparently continue to be so. yeah, "a virri" is like "Look at all the giraffe!"

Let's say I write a virus write now and send it to you...Your virus scanner will not detect it. Why? Because I, as stupid as I am to write a virus for the Mac, am still not stupid enough to tell the antivirus companies about it beforehand, and therefore your antivirus software will not recognize my program as a virus.

Exactly. that's why AntiVirus companies have labs to find the viruses/virri. Also why AntiVirus software updates itself, and how the companies make money through "Automatic update subscriptions".

It just seemed wrong, with people actually berating others who took the extra precaution, even if they got it free with their .mac subscription (assuming it's for other purposes). If an exploit is found somehow in a firewalled and updated OS X, and a worm is created to exploit that (as macs are more difficult to hit with a virus than Windows, no autodownload autorun crap), we'll all be singing a different tune.

Chuckit · Feb 14, 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
According to that logic, all virus software is useless then.

I didn't say it was useless; just that having antivirus software doesn't mean you're "protected" from a new virus.

I also suspect that Norton et al. wouldn't be nearly so fast to release a virus description for the Mac -- they'd be too busy working on the viruses that affect 90% of the computing world. But that's just me being paranoid.

Alisair · Jan 6, 2006, 05:37 PM

Before you get too smug remember that being less than 4% of on-line systems as apposed to 80%+ is your only security. Just a few of the advisories, many of them covering multiple security holes patched in MAC OSX.

http://secunia.com/product/96/#advisories

Most all the users I know have enabled the command line and made themselves local admins, opening up their systems. Also there are more than a few Linux hacker's that have root kited MAC OSX boxes, these are not considered viruses but are protected against somewhat by AV programs. Porting a rootkit over to the open source unix underlying MAC OSX is trivial for a *nix user. The software firewall is only as secure if not opened up to allow mail, web-server, instant messaging.. and so on...

Chuckit · Jan 6, 2006, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Alisair

Before you get too smug remember that being less than 4% of on-line systems as apposed to 80%+ is your only security. Just a few of the advisories, many of them covering multiple security holes patched in MAC OSX.

http://secunia.com/product/96/#advisories

Most all the users I know have enabled the command line and made themselves local admins, opening up their systems. Also there are more than a few Linux hacker's that have root kited MAC OSX boxes, these are not considered viruses but are protected against somewhat by AV programs. Porting a rootkit over to the open source unix underlying MAC OSX is trivial for a *nix user. The software firewall is only as secure if not opened up to allow mail, web-server, instant messaging.. and so on...

You don't have to "enable the command line." You also don't need to open up the firewall to create connections out. Next time, before you try to troll, I suggest you get your STFU certification.

cybergoober · Jan 6, 2006, 06:24 PM

The whole market share/virus argument is getting old. The first person who creates a virus that infects Mac OS X will be an instant legend. I would think that's plenty of incentive for some 1337 H4X0R to do it. It hasn't happened yet. I mean, come on. You know those hardcore Windows guys would love to rub it in the faces of every Mac zealot who has ever replied "Get a Mac

" in response to some virus/adware/spyware thread on some of the other forums on the 'net.

I'm not completely naive in thinking that it will never happen, but arguing that it hasn't happened yet solely because there are so few Macs to infect is just as naive IMO.

I should mention that ANY antivirus software should identify macroviruses and potentially malicious code, no matter what platform the code might attack. Not many do, but at least getting a warning that something in your email might be a problem so you don't accidentally pass it on is a Good Thing®.

ghporter · Jan 6, 2006, 08:15 PM

The entire Mac community is smugly aware that there are currently NO active viruses in the wild that can attack OS X. That does not mean that there never will be, just that there are none now. Unfortunately this smug attitude in too many people equates to "it's impossible," which is flat wrong. While OS X is more secure than Windows, no software can be infalible; eventually someone might find a real chink in the OS X armor and exploit it.

Symantec/Norton, Sophos, Agax, and others make products of varying quality and capabilities for the Mac. I've heard horrible things about the Mac version of Norton Antivirus, but at home we use Symantec Client Security for Mac (a corporate edition) with extreme success. I haven't bothered to try any of the others...

Check out SecureMac.com for details about Mac security, particularly virus security and what the various OS X security updates have been about; Apple has been aggressively patching the OS as potential holes have been found, whether or not there's been an actual exploit for those holes.