+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29
Mac Thread, Sophos Anti-Virus For MAC Home Edition [Free] in Technical; Link: Free Mac anti-virus - Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac Overview As Apple computers grow more popular than ever, they're an ...
  1. #1

    DaveP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Can't talk now: The mother-ship is calling!
    Posts
    8,706
    Thank Post
    351
    Thanked 1,268 Times in 866 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    1124

    Sophos Anti-Virus For MAC Home Edition [Free]

    Link: Free Mac anti-virus - Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac

    Overview

    As Apple computers grow more popular than ever, they're an increasingly-enticing target for hackers. And these hackers aren't just mischief-makersóby targeting your computer or applications you use, these criminals are out to steal and profit from your valuable personal information. Don't let them. Get free Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac today.

  2. 2 Thanks to DaveP:

    Carter (2nd November 2010), ZeroHour (2nd November 2010)

  3. #2
    Carter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    269
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 64 Times in 41 Posts
    Rep Power
    18
    Interesting. I was doing testing and research all summer to purchase a Mac AntiVirus product for the school and their home edition was not free. Cool to see a big Mac AV product going free ... or at least for the time being. Thanks for the update.


  4. #3


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.405546, -0.510212
    Posts
    8,708
    Thank Post
    220
    Thanked 2,615 Times in 1,926 Posts
    Rep Power
    777
    There's also NOD32 for the Mac (a.k.a. ESET Cybersecurity). This is currently in beta, but looks really good. I wonder if this will be free too (probably not)?

  5. #4
    lafleur1977's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    143
    Thank Post
    105
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    We use Sophos AV on our macs which is available from our LA.

  6. #5
    mrweekender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    17
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Mac OS X does not need anti-virus software - period. Unless you're downloading pirated software, in which case tough luck.

  7. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    267
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 67 Times in 59 Posts
    Rep Power
    51
    Maybe on its own, but:

    1. I don't want to get caught with my pants down when someone makes an effective one. There are a few viruses for mac and unix, its not particularly difficult to write one, just difficult to find a way to propagate one. There are probably many holes that could be exploited.

    2. The macs where I work (and I would guess in many other schools) are connected to the Windows network and to various network shares (personal, departmental and public). I want to stop any malware asap. I definitely don't want it getting as far as a network share on a server.

  8. #7

    EduTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    5,037
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 908 Times in 712 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by mrweekender View Post
    Mac OS X does not need anti-virus software - period. Unless you're downloading pirated software, in which case tough luck.
    This has been the case that has been said since the OSX Operating System has been around, if not before.. but as someone said above, the chance maybe very slim at the moment but it won't be long before it changes, as said there are exploits out there and people know of them and if someone were to do it and it were to affect users at least you knowing you have some form of protection you are not going to be affected. It's FREE have it for chance

    James.

  9. #8
    lafleur1977's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    143
    Thank Post
    105
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by mrweekender View Post
    Mac OS X does not need anti-virus software - period. Unless you're downloading pirated software, in which case tough luck.
    I disagree. Mac OS X is just a susceptible to exploitation as a Windows PC or another device. It is purely down to MAC OS X's low market share that there are less viruses however with its market share increasing, it is very sensible to consider anti-virus for MAC OS X. Apple and Sophos both recommend it, with Sophos having several articles on their website.

    Have a look at this: Apple anti-virus advice was nothing new ? The Register

  10. #9
    mrweekender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    17
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lafleur1977 View Post
    Mac OS X is just a susceptible to exploitation as a Windows PC or another device.
    Sorry but that statement is just plain wrong. Mac OS X is completely different to Windows it's based on UNIX and for a start it doesn't allow applications to access to the core system resources without physical intervention from the administrator. This is why Mac OS doesn't suffer from "drive by" installations unlike Windows which by it's very nature has to allow applications to directly access the registry. At present the only time you'll get a "virus" on a Mac (if you can find one) is if you yourself install it and give it permissions to access key system resources and even then it's impossible for it to propagate any further, thus causing no further risk to other Mac's.

    I've had Mac's for years - most recent one 3 years, guess what, no viruses, no malware, zip, nada, zero. I wouldn't call it sensible I'd call it a misinformed knee jerk reaction to FUD.

    It's been argued a billion times by Windows users but I'll leave it up to this rather eloquent guy to sum it all up (read Linux - read Mac OS):

    I was very, very disappointed to see a respected company such as Sophos being a party to the promotion of continued misunderstanding of key concepts in computer security.

    Whilst precise technical definitions are not necessarily important for end-users, that is not an excuse for the use of imprecise language when discussing specific security issues, and I note that Cluley's article (hotlinked from this story) is very careful to avoid stating that Mac viruses do or do not exist - he refers to Mac "malware" and Mac "threats", but keeps referring to "anti-virus software" to address these. No. It's bad enough that the uninformed seize upon the existence of ClamAV and the like to bleat that "there must be Linux viruses because anti-virus software exists for Linux" (we can't stop people from demonstrating the extent of their ignorance), but it's shameful that he is attempting to promote Sophos anti-virus and anti-malware products by leveraging that ignorance.

    By all means he can promote his company's security products for the Mac, and there's no objection to them calling it "anti-malware" and/or "anti-spyware" software. But it's not "anti-virus" software unless, like ClamAV, it's software for dealing with Windows viruses that happen to reside for whatever reason on a Mac platform, in the same way that my Linux servers deal with Windows viruses being sent through my Exim MTA, destined for Windows-using end users.

    Quite frankly, it's about time that Trading Standards officers or the Advertising Standards Authority prosecuted Sophos for misleading anyone who buys "Sophos anti-virus for Linux" in consequence of the belief that Linux can be infected by a virus. Or have they successfully claimed the cash prize offered by Eddie Bleasedale's NetProject Limited to anyone who can successfully infect one of their properly-configured Linux boxes with a virus - i.e. malware that is self-replicating, the key criterion for software to be classified as a virus?



  11. #10

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,630
    Thank Post
    890
    Thanked 1,314 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    441
    I have to ask then, if thats the case and they are more secure why is that they are the first to fall every year at pwn to own?
    Thats before we get to cross platform exploits such as flash/java etc......
    Also tbh say what if, god forbid, there is an apple virus, how would you know if you dont have any protection.
    Last edited by ZeroHour; 15th December 2010 at 12:13 AM.

  12. #11
    AntonioRocco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    262
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 112 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    @ZeroHour

    ". . . why is that they are the first to fall every year at pwn to own?"

    What does this mean exactly? I could be wrong AFAIK an exploit is not a virus. Besides you'd still have to have express permission of an admin account as well as root (assuming BSD injection).

    "what if, god forbid, there is an apple virus, how would you know if you dont have any protection"

    How can you be protected against something that does not exist yet? Like any A/V Software it can't protect you against something new.

    One of the widely respected articles regarding Viruses, Malware and exploits on the platform is here:

    Thomas' Corner: Mac Viruses

    There was another thread discussing this subject not long ago:

    Sophos on 10.6

    Personally I have to agree with mrweekender. My 2p.

    Antonio Rocco (ACSA)

  13. #12
    mrweekender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    17
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroHour View Post
    I have to ask then, if thats the case and they are more secure why is that they are the first to fall every year at pwn to own?
    Thats before we get to cross platform exploits such as flash/java etc......
    Also tbh say what if, god forbid, there is an apple virus, how would you know if you dont have any protection.
    No offence but I think you'll find we're talking about a virus attack here ie. the redistribution of malicious code through propagation - not a direct brute force system hack. Exploits can be written for any system anywhere, it's what they can do that counts. Windows viruses can redistribute on such a massive scale due to inherent flaws in the system architecture unlike UNIX which was built from the ground up with security fail-safes. Ask any web admin what they're using to deliver their web packages and apps, what the number one system is for delivering secure web content, UNIX. Then ask em what anti-virus they're running and watch as they answer "what for the windows clients?". Lol. Same old same old.

    Fact - there has not been one "virus" seen in the wild for OS X.
    Fact - there are over 144,000 "viruses" seen in the wild for Windows OS.

    Also by your logic how would you know the anti-virus software that you bought could protect you if nothing has been written yet that circumvents the admin permissions to allow for propagation? That must be some sparkly Sophos crystal ball they've got there!

    Face it, it's a lie based on fear of the unknown - something that's used as a basic marketing strategy the world over every single day.

    Y'know what put anti-virus on your Mac if you like, I personally don't care, it's your choice but don't be a mug and pay for it because at this moment in time it's about as much use as an ejector seat in a helicopter.

  14. #13

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,630
    Thank Post
    890
    Thanked 1,314 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioRocco View Post
    What does this mean exactly? I could be wrong AFAIK an exploit is not a virus. Besides you'd still have to have express permission of an admin account as well as root (assuming BSD injection).
    Sigh... exploits are used by viruses, if an exploit exists then all it takes is the will and desire to exploit it for destructive purposes but the biggest issue is no one targets so few...
    Just because there have been no major uses yet the belief that osx is immune is silly considering exploits that can be used exist. If there were no exploits for windows there would be no viruses.
    How can you be protected against something that does not exist yet? Like any A/V Software it can't protect you against something new.
    If its zero day having the software means an ide update and your protected potentially for one rather then waiting for apple to even admit it exists before patching it.

    Are these not reasonable sensible things to realise as IT professionals?

    No modern OS is completely secure but active exploitation does not mean your protected, it just means you have not got the problem yet.

  15. #14

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,526
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,404 Times in 1,861 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Cook View Post
    Maybe on its own, but:

    1. I don't want to get caught with my pants down when someone makes an effective one. There are a few viruses for mac and unix, its not particularly difficult to write one, just difficult to find a way to propagate one. There are probably many holes that could be exploited.
    If it can't propogate, then it isn't a virus.

    2. The macs where I work (and I would guess in many other schools) are connected to the Windows network and to various network shares (personal, departmental and public). I want to stop any malware asap. I definitely don't want it getting as far as a network share on a server.
    This is the reason to have AV on Mac's on a network - to prevent accidental infection of Windows machines via Macs.

    People have been saying for the last decade that Mac's will soon be targetted by virus writers, yet they haven't (much like those men with sandwich boards in town centres shouting that the end is nigh, and have been doing for hundreds of years...). No-one can deny that their popularity has been growing for all that time, ever since the first colourful Imac and OS X appeared. So why are they still virus-free?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroHour
    I have to ask then, if thats the case and they are more secure why is that they are the first to fall every year at pwn to own?
    Thats before we get to cross platform exploits such as flash/java etc......
    Also tbh say what if, god forbid, there is an apple virus, how would you know if you dont have any protection.
    The pwn to own contest is an interesting one, as each time, no-one is able to attack the mac until day 2, when they break out the zero day attacks which they've been sitting on due to months of research. With Windows, in this case, it means that exploits are spotted faster, due to a larger number of users using it, and therefore MS knows about it sooner and repairs it.

    Also take into account the prestige of hacking a mac, over hacking a Windows PC. Hack a Windows PC and people say 'big woop'... Not to mention, who would want to win either of the other 2 machines they had last time (ie. a Vaio and a Fujitsu, compared to a Macbook Air. No-one even attempted the other 2 until the MBA had been won from what I read).

    Also, a hack is in no way the same as a virus! So long as that person has a firewall in place, like all sensible people should (on any system!), the exploit would be pointless, as it simply wouldn't have permission to send any information out.

    Me? If I have a personal Mac at some point, I'll have ClamAV installed for scanning pen drives and the like should I be given them, before I use them in Windows machines, but no, I won't be having it run a realtime scan.

  16. #15

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,630
    Thank Post
    890
    Thanked 1,314 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    People have been saying for the last decade that Mac's will soon be targetted by virus writers, yet they haven't (much like those men with sandwich boards in town centres shouting that the end is nigh, and have been doing for hundreds of years...). No-one can deny that their popularity has been growing for all that time, ever since the first colourful Imac and OS X appeared. So why are they still virus-free?
    They are not that popular tbh, its simply not true, they represent a very low percentage of sales over pc. The misconception is that they are sitting at 20% or higher as that would make them *more* of a target then.

    The pwn to own contest is an interesting one, as each time, no-one is able to attack the mac until day 2, when they break out the zero day attacks which they've been sitting on due to months of research. With Windows, in this case, it means that exploits are spotted faster, due to a larger number of users using it, and therefore MS knows about it sooner and repairs it.

    Also take into account the prestige of hacking a mac, over hacking a Windows PC. Hack a Windows PC and people say 'big woop'... Not to mention, who would want to win either of the other 2 machines they had last time (ie. a Vaio and a Fujitsu, compared to a Macbook Air. No-one even attempted the other 2 until the MBA had been won from what I read).
    No-one could probably do much in the sub 2 minutes it took Miller to hack the mac.....
    In a way your stating windows is hardend faster then osx due to it having to be since its the biggest target. The boasting rights part is though a rather weak argument and speculation at best.

    Also, a hack is in no way the same as a virus! So long as that person has a firewall in place, like all sensible people should (on any system!), the exploit would be pointless, as it simply wouldn't have permission to send any information out.
    Is the firewall on by default?
    Do most users change the default?
    XP had a firewall that was off by default, the great wash of people didnt turn it on and I wouldnt consider the average user of either to be smarter then the other.

    The point is time and time again osx has had its security to be found wanting, although not so exploited in the wild, those that try to excuse it and continue to believe they are immune sadly are misguided imo.
    I use all but I realise that none are perfect including linux.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sophos Anti-Virus service not starting
    By WithoutMotive in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19th May 2010, 10:48 AM
  2. sophos anti virus and buffer over flow
    By mac_shinobi in forum Windows
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10th September 2009, 08:08 PM
  3. Sophos Anti Virus Service And Ghost
    By DaveP in forum Windows
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10th September 2009, 06:12 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •