[Brass]

Well, tooki slammed shut my earlier thread on this topic. I'm guessing he didn't understand that I was writing about a Mac OS X issue and not an application issue, at: Virus protection software more risky than viruses?

Note to Tooki: This is a topic about Mac OS X administration and has nothing to do with any particular application. Please do not close it. Also, if you think I've posted something in the wrong forum, how about moving rather than closing???

Anyhow, back to the topic... Please see the above link for my earlier thoughts.

The summary is this:

Mac OS X is relatively safe from viruses (when compared with Windows, anyhow) for whatever reason. Virus protection software is relatively dangerous as they need to get frequent updates out without much time to test them. Recent releases have caused serious damage to some people's Mac OS X installations.

So do you think that Mac OS X is safer without virus protection than with it?

[TETENAL]

tooki likes closing threads. It makes him feel powerful. Something he never experiences in real life.

I see your point with the anti-virus software. Today I would agree with you, that anti-virus software does more bad than good. This might change in the future. The most important thing is that you use reason when operating your computer (or going through life) – whether you use anti-viru-software or not. Whenever you blindly click OK-buttons you are lost.

[cybergoober]

In a corporate environment anti-virus software is a must. Even on a Mac. Don't want the Mac user's forwarding infected files (that do not directly affect Macs) to Windows users.

[Maflynn]

You really haven't proved why its safer not to run anti-virus software. Viruses take advantage of security holes that exist in the OS and/or users who blindly hit ok on sites.

No matter how secure you may think OSX is, there will be a virus for it.

Now what are you basing this "its dangerous to run anti-virus software point" and you state that updates to the software do not get tested. Do you have links supporting this? Do you even know what these updates do, most of them are signature updates to a database. That is patterns or fingerprints that viruses exhibit. By examining files for these fingerprints allows the anti-virus software to identify infected files. For the most part this operation is read only. I say for the most part because if found the file is quarantined.

To summarize how are you going to prove that its more dangerous to run anti-virus software, you need to back up your statements with proof. Not just opinions.

[Dark Helmet]

Yes, so far I have seen all the virus software do more harm than good.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by cybergoober

In a corporate environment anti-virus software is a must. Even on a Mac. Don't want the Mac user's forwarding infected files (that do not directly affect Macs) to Windows users.

I always find this argument to be a bit odd. Although it does make sense, it's not as strong an argument as some seem to think... there are not many viruses that are likely to ever be forwarded manually by a user, and so far as I know, there are none capable of forwarding themselves automatically on a Mac.

In the coporate world, more Mac OS X systems have been damaged by anti-virus software last week, than have been damaged by viruses in the last 5 years. Is the corporate world a bit caught up in the mantra of virus protection, and does it need to re-evaluate Mac OS X's virus threat vs anti-virus-software threat?

[Brass]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

You really haven't proved why its safer not to run anti-virus software. Viruses take advantage of security holes that exist in the OS and/or users who blindly hit ok on sites.

No matter how secure you may think OSX is, there will be a virus for it.

Now what are you basing this "its dangerous to run anti-virus software point" and you state that updates to the software do not get tested. Do you have links supporting this? Do you even know what these updates do, most of them are signature updates to a database. That is patterns or fingerprints that viruses exhibit. By examining files for these fingerprints allows the anti-virus software to identify infected files. For the most part this operation is read only. I say for the most part because if found the file is quarantined.

To summarize how are you going to prove that its more dangerous to run anti-virus software, you need to back up your statements with proof. Not just opinions.

Sheesh... did you read all the info on the thread linked to in the original post?

I'm not trying to PROVE anything! I'm merely asking the question, and offering one point of view. This point of view is BASED ON (not proved by) the recent damage done to many thousands of Mac OS X systems by bad virus spec files distributed by one of the anti-virus vendors.

I NEVER said that updates do not get tested. BUT the testing that is done is very limited. It has to be by the very nature of the industry, because there is always an urgent need to get the update released before the new virus spreads too far. Again, this was demonstrated by the recent damage to thousands of Mac OS X systems by anti-virus software.

I don't know how many Mac OS X systems have been damaged by viruses or worms, but I suspect it is very much less than the number damaged by anti-virus software.

I think this is a fairly compelling argument, and I'm interested in other people's thoughts on the issue, and was merely trying to promote discussion.

[Detrius]

I agree with Tooki. This is an application issue.

Mac OS X is not safer without virus protection.

Mac OS X is safer without buggy virus protection software. You have problems with the third party software, so this isn't a Mac OS X issue.


How about taking your issue up with tooki next time, instead of spewing your complaints in the forum?