[NewsPoster]

Every so often, MacNN finds a deal that is too good to go into our usual deal lists, and is deserving enough to be highlighted in its own Big Deals post. Since it usually doesn't hurt to add more security to your computing devices, today's featured item is the Max Total Security with Anti-Virus for Mac, which is currently 45 percent off in the MacNN Deals store.

This security suite is able to help protect your Mac against viruses, trojans, phishing, and other forms of malware, with full, quick, and custom scanning options. The same software can also be useful in the event your MacBook is lost or stolen, sounding an alarm so you can find it if you are nearby, and taking photographs with the built-in webcam so you can see who took it from you. Regular updates of virus signatures and live 24/7 customer support are also offered by Max with the suite.

Ending in five days, this $40 Max Total Security with Anti-Virus is on sale for just $22.

[Mr. Strat]

Waste of money, disk space, and clock cycles

[OldMacGeek]

"Every so often, MacNN finds a deal that is too good to go into our usual deal lists, and is deserving enough to be highlighted in its own Big Deals post."

Let me rewrite this:

"Every so often, MacNN is paid a great deal for something to not go into our usual deal lists, but is de$erving enough to be highlighted in its own Big Deals advertorial."

MacNN staff; Really? If this was an actual review of the app, and not just a glancing bullet list of features, I'd get it. However, an advertorial not marked as such - especially in a category of software most Mac users are pretty disdainful of - just feels wrong. And yes, I know you gotta pay the bills and people have to eat. We're used to that. We put up with ads here from software we *know* is crap (Hello, MacKeeper!) because we know ad revenue is ad revenue. However, . . .

[Mike Wuerthele]

This isn't an advertorial, and we haven't been paid for placement. IF you buy, we get a small percentage of the sale, though. Its a good price on a product that so far, does what it says on the tin - I've personally had it running for a bit, now, and tested it on known Java and Flash malware distributions with no penetrations on the installed machine, and an infected machine running bare OS X. Mac users can be disdainful about this class of software all they like, but unfortunately, as the market share increases, we're going to see problems more and more.

We haven't done a full review on it (yet), but I have looked at v4 and v5. You want to talk about it, we'll talk about it, but don't make assumptions.

Re: MacKeeper - if you see and ad for it, take me a screenshot, and email it to [email protected]. We kill the MacKeeper ads when we see them.

[Flying Meat]

People get so cynical...
I look forward to the review.

[DiabloConQueso]

The uphill battle that software like this has to fight is due to the fact that this particular genre of Mac OS X software (the "security suite" software) is half-legit, and half-scammy-crapware (MacKeeper, for instance).

It makes picking our the software that actually does do something good very difficult, as the initial, knee-jerk reaction to software like this is very similar to Mr. Strat;s and OldMacGeek's, and rightfully so.

It's just a genre of software on the Mac that will take a long time to clear its name, because its name has been sullied by more than a handful of bad players looking to capitalize on users' ignorance and paranoia.

[OldMacGeek]

"... but unfortunately, as the market share increases, we're going to see problems more and more."

I thought MacNN was one of the publications/online entities that *debunked* the whole "security through obscurity" myth. Do you think that any script-kiddie wouldn't be slobbering for the chance to say they were the first person to write a self-propagating virus on the Mac? To use the "low marketshare" trope to sell software such as this? . . .

[Mike Wuerthele]

OldMacGeek, I'm not sure what your point is with this last comment.

[OldMacGeek]

The point is this; Many PC publications subscribe to the "Security through obscurity" myth (Apple's low market share makes the platform a target not worth hacker's time). Many Mac publications/sites (yours included, I believe) have debunked this over the years. The reason there aren't any Mac viruses is not due to it not being worth a hacker's time due to low market share, but due to the inherently-stronger operating system where security is concerned. So as market share increases, we will not see an increase in viruses on the platform, and will not need the kind of software mentioned above.

[Mike Wuerthele]

We're less Kool-Aidy on the Security Through Obscurity argument, and opinion varies amongst the staff, but the situation isn't binary. Yes, there is a certain level of STO, and a certain level of inherent security in the OS.

So, following that OS X has security baked in from the get-go, but as its been coded by imperfect beings (see DiscoveryD, Apple Music library mangling, et al), there can be problems with the code. At some point, the expansion of the user base makes it worth the extra effort to drill deep and make an exploit based on this flawed code.

We, meaning most of the readers of MacNN have an inherent understanding of what it means when the OS asks for permission to do something. Our polling says that not everybody does, not by a long shot. Just about every exploit that exists requires this - and what we've tested so far doesn't get installed with this particular package, even if you give the OS permission to do so.

We, as experienced users, say "why is X application need permission to do something" and look into it. Appliance users don't. We, meaning MacNN readers, don't generally need this kind of software. However, there is an entire generation of users that may, which is why we're looking into this entire class of software.

We can say to people that "No, OS X has no exploits" and we'd be wrong. We can tell people who buy machines to "be safe, and you'll be fine" and that's only half the story. How do they know what to be safe about? How do they know when to be safe? Are you going to be available to them every time the password entry box pops up?

Just because you, OldMacGeek, don't need this particular class of software, doesn't mean that you don't know somebody that might. I don't need this class of software on OS X right now, but yes, I know many people that may.

DCQ is right. There have been bad actors in this class. That doesn't mean that the this software genre as a whole should be ignored, nor applied universally. That's why we're looking into it, and that's why we lay out on the main page specifically how somebody gets infected (or can avoid infection) by the adware or malware that does exist for OS X, instead of laying on the fear like NBC, WSJ, Forbes and whatnot do.

In fact, this all gives me an idea for a polling question.

[OldMacGeek]

Agreed on most points. I do know those that could benefit from either this software or getting their hands slapped when they obediently (well, it *asked* me!) enter their password for an innocuous app that certainly shouldn't require that level of access.

Are there trojans, malware, and exploits? Certainly. Are the coders of the OS perfect? Certainly not. Will someone write an actual virus on the Mac? Possible. And if/when that happens, the cred that hacker will gain to be the first to do it will no doubt outweigh the "small" marketshare.