Kaspersky anti-virus for Mac
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Bruce Horrocks on 22 Apr 2010 18:23 On 22/04/2010 16:59, Chris Ridd wrote: > I was trying to find the post from Bruce that proposed asking the banks > to get the security software properly certified (CC) first. Why would > you trust something *claiming* to be secure? It was me. The relevant bit was: > Anyone wishing to stall their bank could write and ask why Trusteer > Rapport doesn't appear to have a CESG Claims Tested Mark nor a Common > Criteria certification. > <http://www.cctmark.gov.uk/> > <http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/> -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: smurf on 22 Apr 2010 19:32 Peter James wrote: > My Bank is offering all of its on-line banking customers the Kaspersky > anti-virus for Windows and Mac for free. > Is this offer worth taking up? > I'm running OS X 10.6.3. My inclination is to say no. The only > problem is when and if my account is hacked I'm told I have no > comeback because I'm not running anti-virus software. > > Peter That is not true. Your bank is 100% responsible for your loss 100% of the time, with the exception being that you were party to the hacking.
From: Dorian Gray on 23 Apr 2010 10:01 In article <1jhczgk.kykzja1dr4xbcN%nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk>, nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk (Duncan Kennedy) wrote: > I > use Wirus Barrier on my Macs - OK I *know but I don't want to be the > first to be screwed by the first Mac virus in the wild and that is > coming one day soon. But your Wirus Barrier software (or any other "anti-virus" software on the Mac) will not protect against the as-yet-hypothetical "first Mac virus in the wild" when the latter first appears, because it will be new, see? So you won't be any more secure than someone with no anti-virus software. In fact, Mac users with no anti-virus software will be arguably *more* secure, for two reasons: 1. At least they will *know* they are not protected, and so may respond more quickly to reports of the first in-the-wild threat, as opposed to users with stuff installed who might be lulled into a false sense of security. 2. Your anti-virus software might introduce security holes in your system. In the meantime, at the very least, your computer will be suffering a performance hit for nothing.
From: Dorian Gray on 23 Apr 2010 10:04 In article <1jhczy2.hwwyvwekxowdN%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: > Duncan Kennedy <nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk> wrote: > > > I > > use Wirus Barrier on my Macs - OK I *know but I don't want to be the > > first to be screwed by the first Mac virus in the wild and that is > > coming one day soon. > > See that is the thing. It probably *is* coming one day soon, and when > it does we can then work out how to protect about. But it won't act like > a windows virus, as that wouldn't work, the architecture is different, > and if it could act like that, it already would. Noone knows what it > will look like or how it will act (or it would already be here), so all > you do by running anti-virus (apart from protecting PCs from passed on > things) is give yourself a false impression that you have some kind of > protection. As it is you are no more protected than anyone else. Okay, Woody, just like I said, except you beat me to it. :) > > >but others I've seen basically > > > scan your Mac for Windows viruses - presumably to stop you inadertently > > > passing them on to other windows users. > > > > Actually according to the blurb, most of these are for users of virtual > > Windows on Mac systems > > That does makes sense. Yes.
From: Chris Ridd on 23 Apr 2010 10:11
On 2010-04-23 15:01:02 +0100, Dorian Gray said: > In article <1jhczgk.kykzja1dr4xbcN%nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk>, > nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk (Duncan Kennedy) wrote: > >> I >> use Wirus Barrier on my Macs - OK I *know but I don't want to be the >> first to be screwed by the first Mac virus in the wild and that is >> coming one day soon. > > But your Wirus Barrier software (or any other "anti-virus" software on > the Mac) will not protect against the as-yet-hypothetical "first Mac > virus in the wild" when the latter first appears, because it will be > new, see? Well not necessarily, as they should be able to detect things that look *like* a virus, ie identify viruses they haven't seen before. To an extent anyway. However you'd also expect any virus programmer worth his or her salt to be running his or her creation past the latest and greatest virus scanners to make sure they escape detection. > So you won't be any more secure than someone with no anti-virus > software. In fact, Mac users with no anti-virus software will be > arguably *more* secure, for two reasons: > > 1. At least they will *know* they are not protected, and so may respond > more quickly to reports of the first in-the-wild threat, as opposed to > users with stuff installed who might be lulled into a false sense of > security. Maybe. > 2. Your anti-virus software might introduce security holes in your > system. True. > In the meantime, at the very least, your computer will be suffering a > performance hit for nothing. True. -- Chris |