[Macworld]

Post your comments for Kaspersky Lab releases antivirus app here

[davebarnes]

I am supposed to waste $60/year AND CPU cycles for this?

Wrong!

[leskern]

YES! I want to help my PC-using brothers and sisters from getting a virus from my Mac. Wait... no I don't. I simply don't care enough to shell out MY money for THEIR problem.
When a REAL virus hits the Apple platform, I'll buy something... maybe.

[Dolphbucs13]

Well, at least THIS company is being honest about the true need of its product at present. If I were going to shell out the bucks for an AV, they would get mine.

[Dryvlyne]

Always did like Kaspersky A/V when I was a Windows user, but I don't think it's necessary on a Mac. If I was going to use anything I'd just use the free ClamX.

[downunder]

"isn’t inherently invulnerable"

Well my school teacher will tell you this is a double-negative, the sort of stuff Microsoft does when trying to hide stuff. Should have been...

"is inherently vulnerable"

But that would invoke a higher level of rejection by Mac users.

[lwdesign]

There are some falsehoods, misconceptions and outright lies about the Mac that never seem to die, especially the pathetically dismal "there are no viruses for the Mac because its marketshare is so small".

As of a recent press release, OS X Leopard is being used on over 50 million Macs. Add to this the millions who are still running Tiger and even Jaguar and the numbers are HUGE.

The lie that hackers don't target the Mac because there are so few of them is completely bogus! The truth of the matter is that the Mac's Unix underpinnings are inherently VERY secure and it's tough as hell to hack the Mac. That's why viruses are a non-issue on the Mac.

Yes, I'm sure it's possible to create exploits on OS X, but it's just no fun to work so long and hard without getting paid for it.

[ckasper]

lwdesign, on 05 November 2009 - 09:04 PM, said:

There are some falsehoods, misconceptions and outright lies about the Mac that never seem to die, especially the pathetically dismal "there are no viruses for the Mac because its marketshare is so small".

As of a recent press release, OS X Leopard is being used on over 50 million Macs. Add to this the millions who are still running Tiger and even Jaguar and the numbers are HUGE.

The lie that hackers don't target the Mac because there are so few of them is completely bogus! The truth of the matter is that the Mac's Unix underpinnings are inherently VERY secure and it's tough as hell to hack the Mac. That's why viruses are a non-issue on the Mac.

Yes, I'm sure it's possible to create exploits on OS X, but it's just no fun to work so long and hard without getting paid for it.

Wait a minute...Apple had its best year ever but only sold 6 million macs. Are you suggesting that Leopard is being installed on every mac sold for the past 10 years? Those numbers are inflated.

davebarnes, on 05 November 2009 - 04:02 PM, said:

I am supposed to waste $60/year AND CPU cycles for this?

Wrong!

No, your IT department should though. WTF cares what a home user does.

[TheFLP]

Quote

(Though if the program is scanning every file you receive or download, how often will that be? And how many of your CPU’s cycles will it suck up when it’s scanning? We’ll have to get back to you on those questions.)

I wish PC magazines had that kind of attitude. Or maybe they're just too numbed by years of A/V software and other digital parasites to care.

Windows has viruses and antiviruses, we have @#$% Flash Player.

[garyi]

I just don't see the point, if a mac has passed on a virus its because the mac was sent the virus from a PC, its not spreading it. Its not been hacked to send the virus to everyone in your email or anything has it?

Basically if PCs did not have a problem, then this software would not exist for mac. So, let PC users sort it out.

[andreamoro]

Well

Kaspersky labs may have released a new antivirus for Mac, but they certainly don't know how they need to take care of the customers.

I get in touch with Kaspersky labs UK once to ask some information on multiple license, and after one week, since no one given me an answer I mailed to Kaspersky America which said me to have forwarded my request that is still waiting for an answer.

I won't think I'll buy their solution even if I'll need it.

[k88dad]

Realistic Mac user reactions to this "news":

1. Yawn

2. Self-satisfied chuckle

[bousozoku]

lwdesign, on 05 November 2009 - 09:04 PM, said:

There are some falsehoods, misconceptions and outright lies about the Mac that never seem to die, especially the pathetically dismal "there are no viruses for the Mac because its marketshare is so small".

As of a recent press release, OS X Leopard is being used on over 50 million Macs. Add to this the millions who are still running Tiger and even Jaguar and the numbers are HUGE.

The lie that hackers don't target the Mac because there are so few of them is completely bogus! The truth of the matter is that the Mac's Unix underpinnings are inherently VERY secure and it's tough as hell to hack the Mac. That's why viruses are a non-issue on the Mac.

Yes, I'm sure it's possible to create exploits on OS X, but it's just no fun to work so long and hard without getting paid for it.

Ask Charlie Miller if it's a lot of work to hack.

That's not to say that Mac OS X isn't reasonably sound, but Apple haven't gone out of their way to make it more secure than it was since 10.1. They added address randomisation--well, a little. They're almost always really late with security fixes, though they worked quickly on Safari 4. Thankfully, there is no ActiveX security hole. Now, hopefully, they're involved in this SSL problem along with the others who are trying to fix it, so weren't not added to the list of victims.

[edmorris]

Blimey, this is $40 in the US and £40 in the UK. £40 converts to over $66 for a one year, single user license and 30% more than the PC version. You must love your PC users to want this.