> If you are going to use A/V on mac at least use Intego... or
> something with some kernel level protection.

I've never tested Intego (not, at any rate, in its more recent incarnation),
but agree in principle. The other obvious alternatives are Symantec, Virex,
and Sophos. A lot of people find Sophos very heavy-footed. Symantec are not
my favourite AV vendor, but their Mac product integrates better than most
with their enterprise and Windows s/w. Virex has been very patchy over the
years.

> > older Macs; considering that the only reason we were
> running antivirus
> > was to protect the Windows machines, that burden was
> widely* resented
> > by the Mac users.
> >
> > *And properly so, in my opinion.

Point taken. But I remember a time when my principle problem on site was
macro viruses spread by Mac users who thought Disinfectant protected them
from everything, so it can be more of a two-way street than you might think.

> > One possible negative is that Clamav exceeds its authority to the
> > extent of classifying "phish" as viruses; only recently has it been
> > possible to turn this off. Some of my peers were upset
> about it, as
> > they prefer to distinguish between "threats to machines"
> vs. "threats
> > to naive users."

That's not a real distinction. A lot of phishing mail is connected to
attempts to install keyloggers, backdoors etc. somewhere along the line. The
fact is, that anti-virus hasn't been anti-virus for a long time. It's
anti-malware...

--
David Harley
http://www.smallblue-greenworld.co.uk

[ reply ]