Sophos Anti-Virus For MAC Home Edition [Free]

[6Foot2]

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-makers—by 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.

[Carter]

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.

 



[Arthur]

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)?

[lafleur1977]

We use Sophos AV on our macs which is available from our LA.

[mrweekender]

Mac OS X does not need anti-virus software - period. Unless you're downloading pirated software, in which case tough luck.

[Chris_Cook]

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.

[EduTech]

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.

[lafleur1977]

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

[mrweekender]

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?

 

 

[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.

Edited December 15, 2010 by ZeroHour

[AntonioRocco]

@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:

 

http://www.edugeek.net/forums/mac/49152-sophos-10-6-a.html#post452209

 

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

 

Antonio Rocco (ACSA)

[mrweekender]

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.

[ZeroHour]

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.

[localzuk]

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?

 

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.

[ZeroHour]

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.

[AntonioRocco]

@ZeroHour

 

"Sigh . . . exploits are used by viruses . . ."

 

If a virus does not exist for the platform how can it use an exploit? Granted it only takes the desire and will to create a virus to use an exploit - if it exists. One day someone - with the required talent - will be cheesed off with Apple for long enough to bother to write one. Until that day comes you won't be protected until after the event. The point is there's been plenty of time for someone to do just that. Yet no-one has. Why? Is it too difficult? They can't be arsed? The platform is not popular enough to warrant an attack? Can't see it somehow. Apple have been high profile for at least the last 5-6 years. Everyone knows what an iPod, iPhone and iPad are. Interestingly in that same period of time you've seen arguably some of the most effective and far reaching Virus attacks for the Windows platform - Conflicker (still doing the rounds at some Corporate and Educational sites I support), BlasterWorm, LoveSan, WelcherWorm etc. For OSX? Nothing.

 

"Just because there have been no major uses yet the belief that osx is immune is silly considering exploits that can be used exist"

Agreed. However I've not said the platform is immune. Eventually someone will have a go and when that day comes it will be news. If anything I doubt if Apple would try to deny it. In many ways it could be looked at as positive publicity. Apple being Apple will probably use it to their advantage.

 

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

 

Agreed. But it's also sensible to look at the pros and cons of the platform and come to an informed decision. My informed decision based on what I know is - save some money because I don't need it. It's true that no modern OS is completely secure although I happen to think a lot depends on who's using it. If you're going to browse silly sites and consistently use P2P Software then you're going to get all the trouble you're asking for.

 

My 2p.

 

Antonio Rocco (ACSA)

[Guest salan]

Whilst I generally agree about Macs (and unix etc), not being at a risk level that needs looking at, I always recomend our Mac users to have AV as they passUSB sticks from them to windows machines at work.

In fact we had the Conficker Virus last summer and that came in from a mac users pen.The person's partner concerned used the pen at uni.

So I ask all staff to be responsible and use up to date AV at home regardless of the machine.

Alan

[ZeroHour]

If a virus does not exist for the platform how can it use an exploit? Granted it only takes the desire and will to create a virus to use an exploit - if it exists. One day someone - with the required talent - will be cheesed off with Apple for long enough to bother to write one. Until that day comes you won't be protected until after the event. The point is there's been plenty of time for someone to do just that. Yet no-one has. Why? Is it too difficult? They can't be arsed? The platform is not popular enough to warrant an attack? Can't see it somehow. Apple have been high profile for at least the last 5-6 years. Everyone knows what an iPod, iPhone and iPad are. Interestingly in that same period of time you've seen arguably some of the most effective and far reaching Virus attacks for the Windows platform - Conflicker (still doing the rounds at some Corporate and Educational sites I support), BlasterWorm, LoveSan, WelcherWorm etc. For OSX? Nothing.

Those are worms not viruses if we are getting strict about the definitions. In strict terms I am still trying to find a proper *virus* that was released as the VAST majority I find recently are trojans/worms/malware/spyware and not true viruses. In fact I am not sure what true virus is out that affects windows 7.

Also although idevices are popular Macs share is still only about 5-7% worldwide and it has not increased vast amounts in recent years, the idevices have. Apple do say they are shipping more but so are others.

 

Agreed. However I've not said the platform is immune. Eventually someone will have a go and when that day comes it will be news. If anything I doubt if Apple would try to deny it. In many ways it could be looked at as positive publicity. Apple being Apple will probably use it to their advantage.

Apple have traditionally been very very very slow to post exploits etc so I would be very surprised they would admit it half as fast as IT pro's would like. Apple would only try and spin it when it was in the mass media.

 

Agreed. But it's also sensible to look at the pros and cons of the platform and come to an informed decision. My informed decision based on what I know is - save some money because I don't need it. It's true that no modern OS is completely secure although I happen to think a lot depends on who's using it. If you're going to browse silly sites and consistently use P2P Software then you're going to get all the trouble you're asking for.

Like home users have a tendency to do? tbh n enterprise terms there is a huge amount that can be done to protect windows from various malicious software using SEP etc and working with whitelisted apps only. That prevents the issue occurring for the vast majority of malware as it simply wont be run other which negates AV then too but we still have AV in case. For example some of the xp share exploit worms were automatically prevented by having an AV definition that came out miles before the patch did. I know sophos cant protect you 100% as they never know whats round the corner but that fact is true on windows as well but at least you have a chance it will get updated with protection quickly.

[mrweekender]

We can argue about the mechanics of this all day but it still doesn't change the fact that there's not one single "virus" been written for Mac OS X and therefore anti-virus software is not needed on a Mac at this time. It doesn't matter which way Symantec or Sophos or whoever try to wash it, it's just FUD from their marketing teams trying desperately to sell you a product you don't need.

 

The excuse that I should purchase anti-virus software for the Mac's because I might infect a Windows PC from a pen drive or try and make out that I'm not a conscientious user if don't - oh please, that's just plain ludicrous and a tactic that will most certainly cost me serious and unnecessary money, and lets face it if the Windows machines on my network are properly patched with their latest anti-virus patches installed this is a mute subject. Oh no wait that's right you can't stop 100% of Windows viruses FUD FUD FUD lol.

Edited December 15, 2010 by mrweekender

[6Foot2]

...oh please, that's just plain ludicrous and a tactic that will most certainly cost me serious and unnecessary money,...

 

This thread started as notification that Sophos for MAC would be free for the home user. So I guess you could say that it will NOT "most certainly cost you serious and unnecessary money" unless you are talking from the point of view of a user who would not qualify for the Sophos home discount?

[SimpleSi]

I was always told that Mac's didn't catch viruii

 

Si

[Guest salan]

The excuse that I should purchase anti-virus software for the Mac's because I might infect a Windows PC from a pen drive or try and make out that I'm not a conscientious user if don't - oh please, that's just plain ludicrous

Well thats how ours came in. From an irrisponsible Mac user.

Alan

[mac_shinobi]

I use anti virus ( Clam XAV ) but I like doing it this way as I don't want something constantly running in the background - if it gets infected, it gets infected and everything is backed up on another partition so will just re install, update and back to where I was so not really a big issue for me to be honest.

 

Run a scan once a week ( I know people are going to say yeah thats not enough, it has to run constantly etc etc )

 

I don't want it making my hard drive etc working / running all the time.

 

It's the whole security vs usability arguement - as long as it is used sensibly within reason then it should be fine but that doesn't stop the vulnrabilities being there - hence software updater for security patches ??

 

As above - let me re iterate ref software updater and security updates

Edited December 15, 2010 by mac_shinobi

[AntonioRocco]

@salan

 

"Well thats how ours came in. From an irrisponsible Mac user"

 

Are you saying it's the mac that's made the user irresponsible? Or is it more likely it's the user who is irresponsible? If the Virus, Worm - whatever you want to call it - was introduced to your network on a pen drive then whatever you've installed to defend against this did not work or was not good enough. If it was a brand new virus it would not have mattered where it came from - mac or PC. You'd have been infected either way.

 

The real point here is whatever the Virus was it did not affect the mac. Why bother spending time, money or effort on protecting something that needs no defence just yet.

 

The comment about IT Companies not readily admitting to exploits is a valid one. Apple are no different from anyone else in that respect. Microsoft have to be more transparent because almost all the exploits out there target their platform. Why? Is it because they're popular? Perhaps it's because they're not popular? Maybe they're just easier to exploit? An easy target even? I would argue those reasons apply to Apple equally as well. Perhaps more so? So where are the OSX Specific Viruses, Trojan Horses and Worms? If you know of any - name them. Let's look them up and see what they do exactly.

 

@DaveP

 

It's inevitable this thread will generate debate of this sort regardless of whether the software is free or not.

 

Antonio Rocco (ACSA)

Edited December 15, 2010 by AntonioRocco

[PcDude]

Mac OS X does not need anti-virus software - period. Unless you're downloading pirated software, in which case tough luck.

 

It doesn't always have to be pirated; you could just be unfortunate enough to download, what looks to be, legitimate software:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTeSYmQS820&NR=1

 

Also Sophos lists several pages of Mac malware (stuff you probably don't want on your Apple computer):

Sophos website search

 

I think Anti-Virus (OK, Anti-Trojan - for the present, who really knows what's round the corner?) software for Mac should just be seen as an increased level of protection that a lot of people do want (for the peace of mind) so they feel safe, especially in a mixed operating system environment.

 

Personally, if I was in charge of a network, I would like the choice (sort of take it or leave it) of a security product for every operating system on that network. I would welcome a vendor who recognises the potential for a security weakness (however slight, even if it is just a Mac user copying files to a Windows server's share) and takes the responsibility to provide a comprehensive, multi-tiered security solution that I can pick and choose from.

 

The way I see it: Windows didn't have viruses at one point. Firefox didn't have the same number of issues that Internet Explorer was having at the same time. As their respective popularity grew the profiteers moved in. The Mac's popularity is growing and will most likely attract the attention of the wrong sort of people when they know they'll get a return on any "investment" they decide to make.

 

TTFN.

 

 

P.S. Written on a Mac )

Edited December 18, 2010 by ZeroHour
Fixing video embed