Mac Antivirus

Have you checked out ClamXav, its free and open source. It automatically scans new files as they are put on your computer. As for the firewall you may have to do a bit of research on that.

 

In terms of anti-virus, I have Sophos running on my laptop, which seems to work pretty well. It's also free and I think reasonable well regarded. You could try that.

In terms of firewall, the IT department should know and it would probably be a good idea to ask them.

 

First of all, anyone who thinks their computer can't get viruses doesn't deserve to have one because they're they're too gullible.

Second, viruses for Mac OSX are on the rise as Macs become more popular. That's the real judge on whether or not something has malware. Windows really didn't have poor security--especially Windows 7--but it was popular and was a target. Ever since Q2 of this year, viruses and spyware for Mac OSX have gone up in record numbers.

 

@ Hot Pink

How vulnerable an OS has a lot less, if not nothing to do with its market share. Its more to do with coding practices, the design of the OS and the design of its permissions/security system(s).

 

I use iAntivirus, just because a) it's free and b) it's more user-friendly than ClamXav.

 

You're both right and wrong, in a sense. Market share plays a larger role in terms of the amount of malware created for an OS than anything else. Every OS has security flaws in its architecture. As a matter of fact, Mac OS X is an easier OS to hack into than Windows, but it's not done so frequently due to its low market share. Windows is targeted often because it has the majority market share. Linux too has viruses (though mostly for server OSs). While the security measures the OS takes is important, market share is, I think, the primary reason.
And besides, most OSs today have good security. Windows XP was horrible, no doubt about it. But Windows 7 is the most secure version of Windows out there.

The best protection against computer threats is the human mind. Most viruses that computers get could have been avoided. Just be careful where you click on the internet, do not open suspicious attachments, do not download illegal music or software and you'll be fine. I think the best free anti-virus for Mac is iAntiVirus.

 

I know some people have blah feelings, but Norton actually has a Mac Antivirus program...just saying. I mean I think it's about a $55 purchase...but none the less.

 

I know that every OS has its flaws. But isn't it a bit coincidental that Windows has the biggest market share but its the most insecure OS? I think it has very little to do with market share, because back in 2009 they found a vulnerability that has been in NT based Windows releases for 17 years and you can not come and tell that is market share related. Besides if I were going to hack into and make malware, it would for Linux that's where the gold is because its used on servers. Also malware and vulnerabilities that work on Linux servers also work on Linux desktops, because its pretty much the same only thing is that servers don't have a pretty UI.

 

Exactly!

Another reason why Windows is the most vulnerable and attacked, is because of code recycling. The code gets recycled so much in Windows that the old malware works on newer releases of Windows with ease and not that many changes to it, if not any changes and the same goes for attacks.

 

I'm not defending Windows. A year ago, I said the exact same thing and I do agree. Compared to the security measures that Linux and Mac OS X takes to defend users from making mistakes in the first place, Windows is inferior. It assumes the user knows what he or she is doing. However, Windows 7 is a vast, vast improvement over XP. XP was a terrible OS. It was not only ugly, it also ran everything in the kernel (which is not supposed to be done). It created instability issues and opened up numerous security holes that could have been avoided in the first place. But, like I said, Windows 7 is better, although not perfect. However, some hackers say that Mac OS X is a easier OS to gain root access, at least according to this article about the Pwn2Own challenge. They find Linux and Windows more difficult to hack into. That's why I believe that market share does play a large role. Neither Apple nor the major Linux distributions have the majority market share, thus they are attacked less often. You're welcome to disagree, this is just what I believe.

Not every Linux distro has the same source code. It has the same kernel (and in some cases, slightly altered), but not the same coding for the outer layers. The coding for Debian and Ubuntu is not the same as the coding for, say, Fedora or Gentoo. Ubuntu is less secure than Tinfoil Hat Linux. Some viruses may not work correctly on each distro.

No platform is perfect. But, as I said above, hackers find OS X easier to hack than Windows, they just don't want to target it because there are less users for it.
And also, I heard from friends that own Macs that Apple is very slow in releasing security updates, even when vulnerabilities are found. Microsoft patches exploits as quickly as possible when they're are discovered.

If the user is careful, most viruses and security threats can be avoided. It's pretty simple: all the user has to do is be careful where he or she clicks, download legal software from trusted sources (by legal I mean freeware and open-source), only go on trusted porn sites, don't open unknown attachments and the user will be fine. I had Windows 7 for a year now and I've not had a single virus.

 

Well every distro is based on the same code, some patch the code other distros leave it vanilla. I think what you meant is that the user space is different. Also rootkits for instance aren't distro specific they pretty much run on any distro, same goes for other Linux viruses.

I never said that one OS is closer to perfection than another. But the fact is that its not to do with market it has more to do with the OS itself. Microsoft has a well known history of recycling INSECURE code, take the network stack for instance that uses a lot of recycled code and that's why its vulnerable because they used poor quality to begin with and they keep on recycling that poor quality code. The reason they had the same vulnerability in it for 17 years is because of code recycling. Microsoft isn't the only group that does code recycling, but they could at least make sure the code that they recycle is of good quality. Again the reason why MS Windows is insecure is the fact that they didn't take much care in the first place when coding it, and they didn't place strong enough internal security measures.

 

Recycling code is done often in most IT companies; it saves time and money. I'm not a Microsoft supporter by any means, I hate them as much as anyone and I do agree with what you're saying to a degree. Every Windows OS prior to Vista was terrible in my opinion. However, I blame it on Bill Gates. He was a sloppy software developer and a bully, there's no denying it. However, now that he's no longer CEO, Ballmer and the developers are doing it correctly. Windows 7 is a brilliant OS and every problem I had with XP I never had with 7. It shows that Microsoft is, at least, trying to improve its security as well as making it more usable to the common user.

 

Well UAC has along way to go, but its a start at least. I don't think there is ever going to be near perfect security mechanisms and user friendliness, because the ones that really work are to mind boggling for the average user (i.e netfilter/iptables, IPFW). Microsoft needs to rewrite Windows from scratch, and make sure its good quality code.

 

You can get an anti-virus for Mac OS X here: Free Antivirus for Mac - Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac Home Edition

It's from Sophos which is quite a reputable security company.