 | Oct 3 2008 |
TREEROD - - Update - - Virex version 7.2 sort-of runs on Mac OSX 10.5.5. I can no longer run Virex for a large number of files; after scanning for a while, Virex suddenly crashes. For instance if I try to scan the Library folder, it'll crash after scanning almost a thousand files. However, if I scan just one of the sub-folders of Library, then Virex seems to work fine. It still scans downloaded files just fine. So, for Leopard, Virex now just hobbles along.
(Version 10/01/08) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 20 2008 |
TREEROD Virex Version 7.2 still works with my new Intel iMac running OS X 10.5.5. So, as far as I'm concerned, the advice from some 3 years ago to stay with Virex 7.2, still stands.
(Version 09/17/08) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | Dec 27 2007 |
OLAFALFERINK Be carefull version 7.7 does not work and version 8.x may delete your home folder. So you better keep away from this.
(Version 12/26/07) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Aug 3 2007 |
PETER DA SILVA You're better off with no antivirus on the Mac than with any of these products. Until there's active threats in the wild all you're going to get is false positives, at the cost of degrading the reliability of your system.
(Version 08/01/07) | |
| [ 9 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Oct 6 2007 |
DONMONTALVO Not sure if that's a good idea, especially in an enterprise/education environment. Even if Mac viruses are few and far between, we are RESPONSIBLE to the other computers on the network (PCs, etc.) to ensure we stop the spread of these viruses. We simply set things up so active scanning is off and only these things get scanned: | |
| Oct 6 2007 |
PETER DA SILVA First of all, if the virus is not active on your computer it's vanishingly unlikely to get stored on your computer anywhere it's even potentially transferrable to another computer to begin with. Second, what mechanism are you proposing by which a virus would be transported from your computer to a susceptible computer in such a way that the susceptible computer would potentially be infected by the virus, and where there are not better mechanisms available than running antivirus software on your computer? Files sitting on a shared folder? First, they won't infect anyone just sitting there. Second, you need to be able to scan them periodically from a central server anyway, to take care of network attached storage that can't run a local antivirus, so add them to the regular background scan. Email? Your mail server should be doing the virus scan for you. Memory sticks? Unless you deliberately put an autorun file in the root of the memory stick, it's just like a file on a share. It will be scanned when they plug it in. The most important thing you can do to protect yourself and people around you is to disable "automatically open 'safe' files after downloading" in Safari.
(Version 10/03/07) | |
| Oct 6 2007 |
DONMONTALVO you obviously haven't worked in corporate environments where virus protection is a mandate. It's reckless and irresponsible to tell people to run without it. | |
| Oct 6 2007 |
PETER DA SILVA I've run one, and I only had to accept the mandate when they centralized IT. We only had antivirus on specific systems that were likely to be a problem, our antivirus policy was mostly based on not running applications that were too risky. When they switched us to the corporate AV scheme and forced us to use risky applications (primarily IE) we had the first site-wide virus incident in five years within a week. We had several of them over the following two years until I left in 2005. And yet we were "technically" safer. So what I'm saying is that antivirus is NOT the best solution anywhere, and certainly not on Mac.
(Version 10/03/07) | |
| Oct 6 2007 |
DONMONTALVO I've been managing Mac departments in Fortune 100 environments, Advertising, Marketing, Design, etc. firms for years. Your advice is not sound for business. Perhaps mom&pop shops or other privately held companies who are not responsible to shareholders can consider your suggestion. It's the mac administrator's job to ensure compliance. Antivirus is part of a solid technology plan. Denying the need is a not very professional. Sorry for being blunt but business does not take risk lightly. | |
| Oct 6 2007 |
PETER DA SILVA There's a lot of things that everyone knows that ain't so. I wasn't the Mac administrator. We didn't have Macs. I was the Windows admin, with 150 developers, and most of them couldn't run any antivirus most of the time because of the effect it had on the development environment... all the problems that AV can cause in even the most conventional Windows environment were far far worse. Even after we were "borged" we still had to run subnets without AV, with corporate approved firewalls, and those were the only parts of the network that were really secure. It wasn't until almost the time I left that we were able to find AV software that didn't screw with developers. The head of IT in the US told me that we were the best run network in the company. So don't talk to me about "mom and pop" shops, "mom and pop" shops don't have 150 developers. The cause of the virus flood that started in '97 and '98 was Internet Explorer and Outlook and the merge of the desktop and the Internet... we stayed out of that, and avoided the virus plague. Even when the rest of the company, thousands of employees, were regularly being shut down at least partially for half a day, a day, three days, ... we dodged the bullet. Why? Because we took action to keep from getting infected in the first place. We didn't join the Internet Explorer / Outlook virus-soup monoculture. I found the places in Windows that were wide open, from applications to network protocols, and jammed them closed. Do that and Windows is no worse off than any other OS. If you company is too inflexible to bite the bullet and dump IE, I can understand. In the end, we were too. If corporate policy stands in the way, if you HAVE to run dangerous antivirus software on your Mac, I commiserate. But don't tell me that standardizing on broken software that's wide open to infection and then taking a "morning after" pill in the form of antivirus is "safe networking". It's no such thing.
(Version 10/03/07) | |
| Oct 6 2007 |
PETER DA SILVA PS: Mac viruses, these days, aren't just "few and far between". They're non-existent. There are no current OSX viruses propagating in the wild, and the closest thing to one that ever showed up was passed through an instant messenger program that you should be blocking at your corporate firewall.
(Version 10/03/07) | |
| Oct 7 2007 |
DONMONTALVO This isn't a developer forum.
(Version 10/03/07) | |
| Nov 14 2007 |
ZANGIEF It's not a forum at all, actually.
(Version 11/14/07) | |
| Oct 20 2006 |
BEANER Other than Clamav (which is behind in the engine and virus updates) what other program is scanning into junk from the scrip kiddies or Wintel co-workers? VirusScan promissing somethine in the future isÂ…
(Version 10/18/06) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 12 2007 |
WONDERING Intego VirusBarrier X Tiger Cache Cleaner (which runs ClamXav) Symantec Norton AntiVirus as well as this McAfee Virex. ... in no particular order ...
(Version 4/11/07) | |
| May 19 2006 |
MICKY1 http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/15850
(Version 6/17/06) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 12 2006 |
ALEXF I don't use AV, but I have to say...live and let live. Our wiser/paranoid fellows will have the last laugh one day :D
(Version 8/09/06) | |
| Dec 22 2006 |
ZETSURIN Ahhh, got to love the Mac owner complacency combined with a dash of smugness. There is little to stop a virus and or malware propagating within your home directory, so don't get too complacent just yet. As the OSX platform increases exposure you WILL have to start worrying about this.
(Version 12/20/06) | |
| Dec 30 2005 |
LEOOFBORG Virex 7.2x still works with Tiger. Barring that there's Clamav. The point is, Virex, like PGP has outlived its usefulness on Mac. The Virex folks decided to go a way that Apple didn't want to go, so now they have an incompatible product. I don't see Apple compromising on this issue; so you can either stay with Virex 7.2x, or go with another solution that is neither Virex nor Symantec. I'd give 7.2x 4 stars for doing what it says, and give 7.5 -1- star for Virex being so darned stuborn. Virex 7.2 is still a viable product on Tiger no matter what their marketing people say. 7.2 works, 7.5 caused instabilities when I tested it. I basically abandoned my license and DO NOT recommend 7.5 on ANY Mac system.
(Version 12/28/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 15 2005 |
MARYW I spoke to MacAfee about my Virex 7.5, they told me that any troubles we have with Virex and Macs needs to be addressed by Apple. To contact Apple for support on them. They do not handle Virex for Macs anymore aside from the dat files that may/maynot import into the program. They also stated that this is because they no longer handle "personal use/homeowner" accounts anymore. Now where does that leave us...Apple isn't letting us have it anymore since it downe't work with Tiger and MacAfee washed thier hands of homeowners. I don't know what Apple will do for virus protection since many of us know that Norton's Disk Doctor is not good for the OS on Macs and creates trouble where none existed.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| [ 6 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
 | Dec 15 2005 |
MACUPDATE ADMIN There is a very good and free software for OS X virus protection, it is ClamXav.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| Dec 15 2005 |
MARYW Thanks, I saw that but it worried me when I went to the website and they stated that it sometimes moves files from where they should be...since I am not that familiar with OS X (Panther 10.3.9) I thought it best not to try it.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| Dec 15 2005 |
MACUPDATE ADMIN I've used ClamXav in Panther and now in Tiger with absolutely no deleterious effects. All files have always been where they are supposed to be. Users should realize that any good developer adds more caveats to the use of their softwares than are truly necessary. They do it for legal reasons mostly.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| Dec 15 2005 |
MARYW Thanks hun, I shall try it then. I just didn't have to want to chase my files around but on the other hand I am tired of finding them there one minute and gone the next...have recently lost my entire folder of textures for my Poser items and the cd I have them saved on is also missing.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| Dec 16 2005 |
COMMANDER LAZENBY I'm positive, Mary, that you meant to reference Norton AntiVirus rather than Disk Doctor. I can fully understand why people refuse to pay for anti-virus solutions on the Mac, given that our only fear is passing them onto our PC friends, and I completely support any open source anti-virus initiatives, but I've been using the latest version of Norton AntiVirus for Mac since it came out and it's never been anything but robust. On the other hand, I honestly have no idea how effective it is since I've never had any problems.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| Dec 16 2005 |
MARYW Thanks Commander -- yes I meant NAV but am also not a fan of DD either.
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| Dec 15 2005 |
UMAROMC You can get Virex for Mac from McAfee but, at least online, you can purchase no less than 5 seats (which costs over $200!)!
(Version 12/14/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 20 2005 |
this can't happen, we need Virex it's a great program! Although there are other Virus programs out there I prefer this one. We should lobby Apple, it's not McAfee's fault it did not work on Tiger 7.7b works just perfect couldn't be better I hope they release the final version of this.
(Version 10/19/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 15 2005 |
BALDLARS I've been told by someone at McAfee that they will no longer supports Virex for the Mac. He said they'll still send out definitions for Virex 7.2. Apparently Apple purchased Virex 7.5 only to learn afterwards that it didn't work with OSX 10.4. Now the lawyers are involved. Apple has pulled Virex off its site.
(Version 10/12/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 13 2005 |
AVFOLK The only viruses seeming to exploit OSX with any degree of regularity seem to be Virex and Symantec. Remember, their 'definitions' are constructed AFTER a virus is found open in the wild... and often after it is TOO LATE -- or devised for the wrond variant. The best defense is updating the OS and your apps, and using Apple's built-in firewall and protections.
(Version 10/12/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 6 2005 |
DB I've kept close watch on all the virus definitions. I've downloaded them and verified that the date of the definitions corresponded to the date on my Virex program (7.2). As of 9/19 no update has shown up in Virex. That is, I just updated to 9/28 and then to the 10/6 definitions posted on the McAfee site. Virex, run on my computer after installing those updates, still shows 9/19 definitions. Has McAfee stopped supporting this version of Virex as of 9/19? Is this just a programmer's error and the definitions are indeed up-to-date? Any one else seeing this disparity? I should add that this behavior accurs in all of my Macs - iBook running 7.5 virex on 10.3, Mac Mini running 7.2 on 10.4. Should we just trash this program once and for all?
(Version 9/28/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 22 2005 |
OPNSRC I think that some people might like to have a look at ClamXav. It is free and quite good.
(Version 9/21/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Sep 27 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Keep elephants way, does it?
(Version 9/21/05) | |
| Sep 2 2005 |
MARK It's more to do with making sure that when the day comes that something is created to exploit some area of OSX or a destructive virus comes our way it does not do more harm than what it should because Mac users think they are immune. I have Virex and Clamxav installed on my Mac and regularly conduct scans with both programs. I find viruses occassionally, though these are PC based I don't or wouldn't want them to pass along them to my PC using friends. I guess Mac users can class themselves as helping people from losing valuable information by being responsible and conducting virus scans regularly on their own machines.
(Version 8/31/05) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Sep 3 2005 |
ANONYMOUS I see you've posted several replies to folks who disagree with the interest of using an antivirii program on the Mac. You're of course entitled to your beliefs, but the fact that each time you rate the product 5 stars once more makes me think you're not totally honest. Vested interest, perhaps?
(Version 8/31/05) | |
| Sep 27 2005 |
ANONYMOUS If you have antivirus software on your Mac, and a virus comes along, you WILL hear about it in the news DAYS before there's a signature file for it. Buy and install the software THEN, don't risk screwing up your Mac before then. Remember, when they evacuated Houston last week... 24 people died because of the panic. And they had a LOT better reason to get out of Houston than you have to put this sand in your computer's gastank.
(Version 9/21/05) | |
| Aug 18 2005 |
MARC So if there are no known viruses designed to exploit OSX and this is a virus fighting program, who is doing the exploiting then?
(Version 8/17/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 23 2005 |
JON the answer is simple, just because you can't suffer from virus doesn't mean you can't pass them on to friends/family/co-workers with windows. you can have a virus on your computer-- sure you'll never know, it's a pc virus and can't hurt you, but send an email or transfer a file to a pc and it could end up hurting someone else. clamAV is perfect for me since it is free and virus protection isn't a priority on mac just yet.
(Version 8/17/05) | |
| Aug 18 2005 |
That's easy to say if you do not have the knowledge to use the tools wisely and correctly perhaps you should invest in some time to have these tools used to suit your purposes. Also it's very easy to put up a degrading comment to something and leave your name as 'anonymous' the markings of a coward me thinks. | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Aug 18 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Virex is a joke, and I'm starting to believe .Mac is too.
(Version 8/17/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Sep 2 2005 |
HOLYPOLY You, my friend, are a joke.
(Version 8/31/05) | |
| Aug 4 2005 |
MARK Virex 7.7 Beta works for OSX 10.4 and works very very well. I have both ClamXav and Virex installed on my Mac, ClamXav is a good virus program but I prefer the obvious polish to Virex more.
(Version 8/03/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 18 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Virex 7 will not be for individuals, but only for corporate licenses. It's not a viable solution.
(Version 8/17/05) | |
| Jul 15 2005 |
ANONYMOUS ClamXav is simplier and much more useable.
(Version 7/13/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jun 23 2005 |
DR, H I feel ripped off by both Virex and .Mac. No support from either. Apple convinced me to purchase the .Mac for the virus program. The Virex doesn't work, makes my system freeze when starting (iMac G5, OS 10.3) and tells me I don't have room on the hard drive for an update. Do I really need more than 64G for a download update? I'd love to hear of some other virus program for my Mac.
(Version 6/22/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 5 2005 |
ANONYMOUS i have had the same problem, used it, and whenevr i have my netwrok connection on, the the machine becomes extreemly slow, you can't even do nothing. once i uninstalled, things worked perfect. i was on 7.2 when it was on .mac, and lately i wanted to try to upgrade, but it was not there anymore to install.. so i have to pay extra for it. so that is another reason not to pay for the new version which is a follow up of something that has already ben tested as slow. and it is another reason why not to go with a .mac renwal again.
(Version 8/03/05) | |
| Jun 11 2005 |
MRKRANKY An antivirus program that: - no longer works in 10.4, requiring that you uninstall and downgrade to the previous version; - mismanaged user support such that Apple dropped them cold from the .Mac roster; - has sporadic issues with updating virus def files; - has earned a reputation for horking email database files. After using this app for two years, I've decided I'm safer without it than to have it on my Mac.
(Version 6/08/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jun 3 2005 |
ANONYMOUS I have Virex 7.5 on an iMac G4 running OSX10.2 and Virex 7.2 on a PowerMac G5 running 10.4. Neither version of the program updates the virus definitions, ever. I've tried before to download and install the definitions from this and the McAfee site, and the program (7.5) doesn't even recognize them. I got Virex through my .Mac membership, and I've asked if they could offer an alternative virus protection program. If not, I may not renew this fall and use the money to buy another anti-virus program that actually works.
(Version 6/01/05) | |
| [ 6 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jun 3 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Have a look at clamXav, free and based on opensource.
(Version 6/01/05) | |
| Jun 3 2005 |
ANONYMOUS It's a known issue that Virex does not work with 10.4.
(Version 6/01/05) | |
| Jun 3 2005 |
DRG The virus definition updates posted on the .mac site were always posted far behind what MacUpdate has provided. If you are a MacUpdate member, you can put the Virex Updates on your watch list, download them as they become available, then install the package, then run Virex 7.2 to san your drive. Remove V7.5 from all OS X 10.4 machines and reinstall V7.2.
(Version 6/01/05) | |
| Jun 19 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Mine does not update either. I feel pretty ripped off, because that's why I bought .mac---for the virus protection.
(Version 6/15/05) | |
| Jun 19 2005 |
ANONYMOUS You bought .mac for virus protection? There are no viruses for OS X. You are a certified dumbass.
(Version 6/15/05) | |
| Jun 24 2005 |
AUSTIN NOLAN I wonder why I am paying for the privilage of getting Virex with my .Mac account when it is impossible to eupdate and it takes ages trying to find the latest DAT updates. This programme is either supported by Apple or not. If not they should replace it with something more in keeping with the rest of the .Mac software.
(Version 6/22/05) | |
| Jun 3 2005 |
TC Do we really need this type of programme?? I've had a Mac for several years and never needed this type of prog, but then I'm careful where I surf and who and how I send emails. | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | May 22 2005 |
DRG Apple has stated in its forums that Virex 7.5.x does not work with Tiger. Other forums have stated (and I confirm by having done it) that Virex 7.2.1 DOES work with Tiger. Go to http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301291 so see how to uninstall Virex 7.5.x. Then redownload 7.2.1 from Apple's site (yes it's still there!) and install. You will not have as many features, and you will have to manually scan your drive, but I still feel to this day that V7.2 was much better than 7.5. Also, you might find your computer working faster and cooler as the processor won't constantly be working. I want't to thank all the people who have posted to Apple's forums on Apple's websites for providing the info that I'm giving to you. You all are great!!!
(Version 5/18/05) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jun 6 2005 |
ANN I did go back to Virex 7.2.1 but I can not do an online update of the virus definitions. Do you have the same problem?
(Version 6/01/05) | |
| Jun 23 2005 |
RIPHLY Thank you for mentioning that Virex 7.2.1 is still on the Apple site. I can't find it. Can you guide me to it?
(Version 6/15/05) | |
| May 12 2005 |
SHK it's known, that tiger does'nt support virex anymore ! but, no panic, we are gladly not windowsusers ....
(Version 5/11/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 29 2005 |
ANONYMOUS virex v 7.5.1 fails to work with TIGER OS X v 10.4, what gives?
(Version 4/27/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 7 2005 |
ANONYMOUS An absolute disgrace that Virex 7.5.1 or 7.6 beta does not work with Tiger. McAfee have only known about Tiger for God knows how many months or years, and Apple are as bad. It's about time they all got off their butts and did something
(Version 4/27/05) | |
| Apr 28 2005 |
KARL BROWN just installed tiger and virex does not work
(Version 4/27/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 28 2005 |
ANONYMOUS what's the point in updating Virex if it doesn't work porperly under Tiger? | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 28 2005 |
FRANCO I am using Virex since more than a year, and always had doubts as to the necessity to use an antivirus on a Mac... up until last week, when Virex blocked for three times in the same day attempts to install a trojan in my beloved Mac, notifying me while working, giving me a chance to drop the malicious file into the waste basket and then deleting it... thanks Virex for the protection!
(Version 4/27/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 22 2005 |
ANONYMOUS I'm skeptical of virus software on the Mac, though I see how this could be useful on a mixed Mac/PC network. I'd like to get some feedback from users, though... does this application *uninstall* cleanly? Macafee's PC product is very agressive, to the point where the only way I've found to completely uninstall it is to reinstall from scratch, and some of my users have to turn it off during development because it makes their systems unstable when they're testing and working on their own software. Have there been any similar problems on the Mac side?
(Version 4/20/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 23 2005 |
ANONYMOUS yes, it uninstalls cleanly. Yes, there are similar issues to those stated. The daemon keeps it running all the time. There is no way to completely kill it, and it occassionally ramps out of control eating major cpu% (98%). You can't just select to have it off. It does NOT pick up on the test files when downloaded in 2 out of 3 formats. They can actually be opened and there is no detection until you try to copy them on the desktop. Scanning archives requires you to actually scan. No mail scanning, since it was deleting entire mailboxes (it's a file after all right). Why bother to be anonymous, I'll just do it too since every problem here has been reported over and over. The .Mac version only updates this way and isn't current. The engine hasn't been changed since the problems were reported. Simply put. This is one of the most poorly written pieces of software I have ever seen. The support is literally non-existent. Yes, I use it because I don't want to infect my pc using friends so it's a bit of due diligence. I'm also under no misconception that macs don't get worms or viruses. Virex could be great if they did some simple fixes, but so far the virex definitions (such as this 4/20 hmmnn one) fail to deliver.
(Version 4/20/05) | |
| Apr 8 2005 |
SHK I know how it "works", be sure ! this update problems came with 7.5.1, before all happened how it should. no updatesolution is positive, exept new from scratch, but this is boring ....
(Version 4/6/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 8 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Worked simply well updating defs & engine! Thanks
(Version 4/6/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 8 2005 |
SHK hi everybody at McAfee, was ist das für ein scheiß programm, läst sich, außer durch neuinstallation, nicht updaten ? (ich kenne die updatmöglichkeiten, die alle nicht funzen) bevor ihr diesen dreck via .mac "gratis" verteilt, sollte "er" über das alpha-stadium hinweg sein ! ich dachte symantec (mist) ist durch nichts zu überbieten und wurde von der mickymausfirma mcafee eines besseren belehrt ...
(Version 4/6/05) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 8 2005 |
ANONYMOUS sorry for your butt, being such a hater! Maybe your knowledge about using applications the way you where instructed is very little?
(Version 4/6/05) | |
| Apr 8 2005 |
ANONYMOUS just forgot to take his/her lithium methinks
(Version 4/6/05) | |
| Apr 2 2005 |
MARK Thanks those at McAfee for giving us this excellent program, it is amazingly fast and reliable, scans file in attachments, and runs in the background nicely too, without using too high resources. I like the ability to watch specific folders too! Excellent work and thanks for the great program, keep it up! This has caught many a PC virus on my Mac, they seem to be increasing in appearance, which is why I am glad to be working on a Macintosh.
(Version 3/30/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 30 2005 |
1. Scan e-mail documents and their attachments from the Wincrap crowd 4. Speed - I mean dang, give me back my CPU, allow me to shut down without going for coffee, fast user switchingÂ…when? 5. Automatically scan any download (i.e. allow Virex to select a specific folder to watch) 6. Athough I used SAM then NAVM for years the automatic background scanning was great (i.e. who wants a pop up window each time a file is decompressed? 7. Thank you for the piece of mind with frequent definition updates :-)
(Version 3/30/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 30 2005 |
isn't it possible, to create a virex, that updates itself? my .mac is correct, but every update must be a new installation of the program itself and only than the "updater" works ... not very funny, even when it's free ! | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 30 2005 |
DANA SUTTON I have to agree. The installation of periodic updates is klutzy and annoying, there should be an easier way.
(Version 3/30/05) | |
| Mar 9 2005 |
ANONYMOUS From MacInTouch.com, today (03/09/05): Steve Chambers's experience shows why we can't be too smug about the Mac's security superiority over Windows: "If you had caught me a couple of weeks ago I would have agreed that the necessity of virus scanners on the Mac was zero. I have been using Mac OS X personally since the public Beta and have been supporting it professionally since 10.2 and have indeed never seen an active virus till about 10 days ago. Plenty of PC only .EXE and .SCR files but they are just dead files on the Mac. Â One of my clients called, panicked, that MS Word (Office v.X not 2004) was acting funny, popping up messages and other puzzling and nasty things. Once I got my hands on it, I installed Virex and it found several viruses (sorry I don't recall their names), the main culprit being a Word Macro virus from 1997 which she probably got exchanging files with her daughter in college. Virex happily cleaned it and also several PC only viri that came in as .EXE files in emails. Â There is currently a discussion going on in the MacEnterprise mailing list about the necessity of virus scanners. Â After this last episode (my first and only encounter with an active virus on Mac OS X) I think my opinion may be changing as to the value of Mac virus scanners. Sure, it started life on the PC and is a Microsoft Word macro virus, but if you have MS Word and have been known to send and receive other MS Word files, a virus scanner might be something to consider."
(Version 03/02/05) | |
| [ 4 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 23 2005 |
BRENT1A (give valid reasons to backup your claims) It should be noted that when viruses affecting macs are discussed it involves a PC or Microsoft based file or product. Of course the files in MS office (and Office itself) can be affected because the PC virus is compatible with the MS Macros in Office. The same goes for something that is cross-platform but based off something from the PC/Linux/etc side. All this means is that Native OS X viruses STILL do not exist. I'd like to see someone provide an example of a native OS X virus.
(Version 03/23/05) | |
| Mar 23 2005 |
WRECKLASS I've said it before, and I'll say it again (probably again tomorrow as well.) The BEST thing you can do to protect your Mac is to start off by erasing Internet Explorer for Mac, and NEVER EVER Install MS Office of any of it's virus magnet cousins. It's an old rule from the militay, don't paint a target on your back, and don't stand next to someone who has a target painted on their back.
(Version 03/23/05) | |
| Mar 24 2005 |
BRENT1A (give valid reasons to backup your claims) I'd hate to be the poor sap who gets to compile and code these updates. Sometimes I wonder if the person who is in charge of the so-called mac counterparts from these mainly Microsoft based software companies are the equivalent of nerdy loners stuck in some desolate corner of the basement. "Oh yeah, thats Jackson, he does the mac coding......snicker, snicker!"
(Version 03/23/05) | |
| Mar 30 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Comments on M$Ofiice and Virus' on os x. First off why would did you invest in a mac in the first place? I invested (i did not consider it buying into a mac) in both of my mac's for one reason and one reason only. The reason was to finally rid myself of M$ (MicroSoft Corporation) in other not so nice words Microsoft CRAP. When I finally brought my investment home I quickly rid both mac's from anything M$ (MicroSoft). There are plenty of alternative products one can download and use for free in place of many of M$CRAP products which are Open Source such as Open Office which requires X11 or NeoOfficeJ which does not require X11 to run. I have found both of these products to be quite an attractive alternative to M$CRAP Office.
(Version 3/30/05) | |
| Mar 3 2005 |
SANJIN This update finally brings 4400 engine. To those who don't consider viruses a threat to Mac community, OK, I admit I haven't encountered any Mac-specific viruses ever since Mac OS X is released. However, about a month ago I downloaded a Python script (don't remember the name), and Virex reported infection within it. I deleted the script immediately and entirely, not just the affected component. Check NAI Security HQ at: http://www.networkassociates.com/us/security/home.asp Just don't say: "It doesn't affect me. It ain't gonna touch me."
(Version 03/02/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 21 2005 |
MORGAN "the frequency of the updates has increased so much recently?" ---> companies are trying to show us the NEED to have an antivirus software. Please dudes, OSX DON'T have viruses and if you are using for "check" your PCee files of your LAN/office, MAYBE you are safe... remember, to make a "vaccine" we need first to know the virii! | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 30 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Yeah!, You should show them what's up by not updating yours
(Version 3/30/05) | |
| Feb 21 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Can anyone tell me why the frequency of the updates has increased so much recently? Virex used to be updated about once a month and now is updated constantly. Has there been that much of an increase in activity, are they fine tuning their software or are they just being more responsive?
(Version 02/21/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 21 2005 |
MAC NEW USER Evolution speed of virus is getting faster....
(Version 02/21/05) | |
| Feb 9 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Apple apparently reinstated support for automatic update downloads for .Mac Virex 7.2 users. My Virex 7.2 program (on OS 10.3) automatically downloaded and installed the 02/09/2005 eUpdate.
(Version 02/09/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 17 2005 |
ANONYMOUS what is the url for eUpdate? the default set in my virex 7.2 (http://configuration.apple.com/configurations/internetservices/virex/1/virexdatinfo.txt) is not working
(Version 02/16/05) | |
| Feb 9 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Crippleware? It's pretty much identical to the retail version. You want to cripple your computer? Use Norton.
(Version 02/09/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 9 2005 |
THEL "You want to cripple your computer? Use Norton." *ROTFL!!!!* Too true! (-:
(Version 02/09/05) | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
GARBAGE "Get DAT Updates 1.4" is a free tool that installs the weekly updates into .Mac crippleware version of Virex.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
BRIAN PATRICK CORK If you have a .mac, account this virus protection comes with the membership. So, the cost of this "extra insurance" is essentially free -- and, bundled with some other cool applications (via .mac) that continue to make Apple computers vastly superior compared to plague-ridden, and otherwise, unreliable PC's. The Bean
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Antivirus software is never free. It works by intercepting _all_ system calls and operations that might be used by a virus. This hurts both performance and stability.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| Feb 9 2005 |
HOLYPOLY Uhm...so do viruses . (virii?vira?)
(Version 02/09/05) | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
another "virus definition"! in this days were created a "lot" of new viruses for Mac, is the reason for continuos updates... s@cks!
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 9 2005 |
ANONYMOUS arn't the definations the same accross the board? i seem to remember something about virex stopping you from passing on virus infected files to peecee users
(Version 02/09/05) | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
DREMWKR This version is starting to get long in the tooth, Virex needs a new version (v8) that incorporates the previously noted user feature requests. A new interface would be in order as well.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS worthless.. macs are invincible!
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ 3 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 4 2005 |
im agree with you...
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Well bragged both of you. But Macs can still propagate Win viruses hidden in e-mails.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| Feb 9 2005 |
Virii and worms are a PCee problem... is not MACusers problem. my comment is for just one reason... i never have problems with virus in OSX and this Companies try to show us your importance with constantly "update" your viruses' DataBases for OSX! for PCee is necesary, but not for MAC... thas is the POINT!
(Version 02/09/05) | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
TNH This is like a nightly build of virus protection. The application itself is what needs an update. There is no way to temporarily stop it from running (ps/top your system) except uninstalling it, then re-installing it. The application eats up CPU cycles when it's set to do nothing. How about a .2 that gives the option of being off and a .3 that scans mail. While the one guy they hired to write this app is at it, how about a .4 to actually work on all three of the test virus file formats.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS uh...what the heck is going on....correct me if i'm wrong but is this the third update for this in a week?
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS "Works great".... Virus protection for the Mac is like a lifebelt in the desert.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Actually, if your Mac is in a mixed PC/Mac environment, Virex is unfortunately necessary. Virex 7.5 found three PC Viruses yesterday in my saved mail. Just because your Mac is immune, it doesn't mean that you can't be part of the problem.
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| Feb 4 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Mixed environment alsoÂ…was e-mailed a link regarding some video projectÂ…a Wintel crap file was downloaded and Virex informed me of the virus/worm. Couldn't use the file but it's nice to know the Mac "catches" these things and the Wintel crowd just treats it as doing daily business :-) Via la Mac!
(Version 02/03/05) | |
| Feb 1 2005 |
ANONYMOUS I use Virex 7.2.1 and it works well when I deal with Windows (no virii in OS X :-)
(Version 01/31/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 13 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Virex 7.5.1 works very good, and Preferences set as default are sufficient for average Mac user. So far, it has caught 1 virus: it was a Perl script within a UNIX CLI program several weeks ago, which I instantly deleted from system. And although updating weekly DAT definitions goes smoothly, I'm a bit worried about scan engine, i.e. current version is 4240, and supposedly new, all-encompassing (cross-platform) version 4400 is slated for this month as of Jan 12, this hasn't happened yesterday when I updated the definitions dated Jan 12,2005.
(Version 01/05/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 10 2005 |
FRED GLYNN Whenever I turn on my G4 laptop (OSX) my Virex software attempts to update itself. It never succeeds in doing this because the number it dials is ALWAYS busy. There is, apparently, no way to update the software, making it well-nigh useless.
(Version 01/05/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jan 24 2005 |
ANONYMOUS have the same problem on my eMac
(Version 01/20/05) | |
| Jan 6 2005 |
JEFF Try this free open source program which checks, downloads and installs DAT files for Virex 7.2. It allows much more frequent updating than the official once a month releases. I think it also works for 7.5 but I am sticking with 7.2 a bit longer as I don't trust 7.5 yet. http://homepage.mac.com/beryrinaldo/Tools/Get_DAT_Updates/ Note that, as the name says, it only updates the DAT, not the scan engine. Hopefully when some Mac viruses appear, so will some good Mac anti-virus software.
(Version 10/05/05) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 2 2005 |
Comment faire pour avoir l'anti-virus Virex dans une autre langue que le chinois et de préférence en français. Cordialité.
(Version 01/31/05) | |
| Jan 5 2005 |
JASON What is the point of virus protection if it does nothing about checking for e-mail viruses? Until Virex fixes this, this anti-virus software is pointless and useless to end-users. As an ISP, we are no longer allowing machines that do not have adequate protection on our networks, and since Virex does not include complete protection, those users are now switching to Norton, which just about sucks, but at least works.
(Version 10/05/05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 4 2005 |
SUSAN I'm so not tech. But I have to say "amen" several times to what others have said. I thought I had some protection and trusted the MacAfee name from my experience as a PC user, but this Virex is just so much fresh corral dust. I keep getting the same messages about updates, it says I'm updated, then it said I was 5 months out of date and that an update awaited but now I can't find that either. So. Am I protected or what? | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 3 2005 |
RIPHLY Hi .Mac Support Team, Remember we got the update working finally about a month ago? Well, I notice that there was a Virex Update on 12/29/04 and my Virex update function can't find it again, reporting that my 12/18/04 definitions are up to date - no error message. This really seems to be on-again-off-again software. 1) Since several other users notice this feature and have noticed it for over half a year, would it be safe to say that Virex has no intention of making this software useful for the Mac? 2) And please explain why "The FTP option is not available to .Mac subscribers who get Virex 7.5 as part of their .Mac membership. This is by design."??? 3)What was the reasoning behind preventing convenient use of Virex. 4) Would you rather we not use .Mac? The subscription for .Mac is US$99. The subscription for Virex is bizarre. A single subscription is US$40, but you have to buy a minimum of 5(?!) subscriptions!!! What for? I have but one MacIntosh! I would say that MacAfee would really like us to go away. Couldn't .Mac find a very much less annoying software provider? And I'm very sorry that I helped Beta test Virex 7.5. I was dealing with an ungrateful and insincere corporation it seems. Please respond to the 4 questions herein.
(Version 12/29/04) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jan 3 2005 |
MU ADMIN The .Mac support team never reads anything posted here, nor should they. You want .Mac support, go to their website.
(Version 12/29/04) | |
| Jan 19 2005 |
GARBAGE I sent feedback to .Mac about the poor state of Virex - result : deafening silence...
(Version 01/19/05) | |
| Jan 1 2005 |
ANONYMOUS I've used McAfee's products when I was a PC user and I have never ran into the BS that McAfee is throwing at us Mac users now... I think McAfee's regard for it's Mac customers is pitiful. Relying on eUpdate is like inviting the viruses to make a home on your system or use it as a rest stop for viruses that are on their way to a friend/aquaintence's PC.
(Version 12/29/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 31 2004 |
ANONYMOUS what is the point of an eupdate feature in this program when it doesn't work? they just keep sending out this update programs and the eupdate does nothing apart from say "your definitions are upto date" when quite clearly their not
(Version 12/29/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 23 2004 |
ANONYMOUS no need for this ?? virus on a mac ???
(Version 12/09/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 21 2004 |
JCLARKV With Virex 7.5, the ftp option is unavailable! Rats.
(Version 11/19/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Dec 19 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Yup - no ftp, and the manual install doesn't work either. "great" buy indeed. | |
| Nov 5 2004 |
ANONYMOUS if u get this update the manual way, ie from here, then where does this file go once downloaded? tia
(Version 11/01/04) | |
| [ 4 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Nov 5 2004 |
ANONYMOUS to your desktop, or whatever place you have designated as your download folder, of course
(Version 11/01/04) | |
| Nov 5 2004 |
SHERLOCK42 It's an installer package. Run it, and it will place the virus definitions where they need to be.
(Version 11/01/04) | |
| Nov 5 2004 |
it was my Stuffit Expander that wasn't unpacking this properly - afterwards it looked like some datafile rather than a .pkg program. Odd.. Fixed now - thanks :)
(Version 11/01/04) | |
| Dec 11 2004 |
MAC1ALL Yes it seems strange, the Virex defs. First it comes as: V7041209.gz which is a gzip, or something, that may be expanded. Then appears the strange file: V7041209 - with no suffix/extension. This is a "Unix executeable" file. But no reason to bother about this. - Just use stuffit to expand it, and then the installer package appears. Have done this for a few years, but started to use Norton AV because this was the only one that found the PC virus like Netsky, directly while downloading with email app.
(Version 12/09/04) | |
| Oct 22 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Reposting Joe's troubleshooting comment. Thanks, Joe! This hint has been buried down in the comments section for a while. I use it and it works flawlessly. It's a much easier way to use eUpdate... 2. Go to the Preferences pane. 3. Check "Customize my eUpdate server settings" 4. Click the "Server Settings" button. 5. Enter the information as follows: • Server URL: ftp.nai.com • username: anonymous • password: leave blank • account: leave blank • directory: /virusdefs/mac/virex7/ Click OK twice: first to exit the server settings, and again to exit the preferences. Click on eUpdate, and it should download and install the most recent virus definitions. (7/28/2004, Version: 7/21/04)
(Version 10/20/04) | |
| [ 6 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Oct 23 2004 |
QUIIICK Unfortunately this is not possible with versions of Virex that have been obtained by .Mac. Users that have canceled their .Mac subscription and would still like to automate the reciept of virus definitions are not able to enter the new URL (nai.comm).
(Version 10/20/04) | |
| Oct 24 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Sorry, you're wrong.
(Version 10/20/04) | |
| Oct 28 2004 |
RIPHLY GEORGE I have a .Mac current account and I am using Virex 7.5: But while there is an active 'Customize eUpdate server settings' button, after clicking that button, the fields mentioned do not appear. The 'Type' is permenantly fixed to 'http' (FTP is grayed out and can not be selected) and port options do not appear. Any advice on this?
(Version 10/20/04) | |
| Nov 9 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Same here. "FTP" is grayed out as an option.
(Version 11/09/04) | |
| Dec 9 2004 |
CARTER MCFARLAND I have tried your suggestion for the eupdate. I get an error message from Virex that states I do not have enough disk space available. I check am am only using 10GB with 59GB available. Any idea whats going on? Thanks, Carter
(Version 11/19/04) | |
| Nov 3 2005 |
ANONYMOUS The tip listed above, if followed just as written, is currently working fine with Virex 7.2.1 on OS 10.3.9 But that is all I can vouch for from direct experience.
(Version 11/02/05) | |
| Oct 18 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Thanks for the tip, Joe. It works great! Nice stuff. Simple, user-friendly and (I hope) effective! ;)
(Version 10/14/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 14 2004 |
ROBIN I think I don't really need this program.
(Version 10/06/04) | |
| [ 4 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Oct 16 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I really don't think anyone cares what you think.
(Version 10/14/04) | |
| Oct 24 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Now that pretty much everyone is used to typing their password to “install” apps that don't require any OS integration, it would be pretty easy for someone to release a Mac virus on MacUpdate. The main reason why viruses spread is user error. So yeah - you need this if you're in the habit of downloading apps.
(Version 10/20/04) | |
| Nov 20 2004 |
Why do Mac users need a virus program? I have used Macs since the 1980s and haven't had any problems with viri. Also aren't many of these softwares scams. How could you ever know if it did actually catch a virus and eliminate it or isn't just telling you that. What third party proof is there for this type of software?
(Version 11/19/04) | |
| Nov 20 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Anyone who *thinks* a virus detection program is unnecessary on a Mac is poorly informed. Educate yourself, and stop posting nonsense. Period, end of story.
(Version 11/19/04) | |
| Sep 1 2004 |
MACMANX Sorry, the comment below was in response to a statement that "W32@.Netsky.P@mm" is the new mac virus. Again, it's a Windows virus.
(Version 8/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 1 2004 |
MACMANX The W32@.Netsky.P@mm virus only affects PCs, hence the W32 (Windows 32-bit). You can, however, have an infinite number of PC viruses sitting on your Mac, and keeping my PC friends safe is one thing Virex is good for.
(Version 8/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 28 2004 |
JOE This hint has been buried down in the comments section for a while. I use it and it works flawlessly. It's a much easier way to use eUpdate... 2. Go to the Preferences pane. 3. Check "Customize my eUpdate server settings" 4. Click the "Server Settings" button. 5. Enter the information as follows: * Server URL: ftp.nai.com * directory: /virusdefs/mac/virex7/ Click OK twice: first to exit the server settings, and again to exit the preferences. Click on eUpdate, and it should download and install the most recent virus definitions.
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| [ 13 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 3 2004 |
DWIGHT MARSHALL omg thanks joe.. my virex wasn't updating until I did what you said.. thanks very much.. Dwight
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| Aug 4 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Thank you so much!
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| Sep 11 2004 |
ANONYMOUS That was a great suggestion. It made getting the virus definitions totally easy. Thanks a lot. Is there any downside to doing it this way? Why isn't this the default?
(Version 9/08/04) | |
| Sep 11 2004 |
RICH Umm... shouldn't the settings be as follows? Server URL: configuration.apple.com/configurations/internetservices/virex/1/virexdatinfo.txt This works for me.
(Version 9/08/04) | |
| Sep 12 2004 |
ANONYMOUS BRILLIANT! I did what you stated and finally eUpdate works flawlessly. | |
| Sep 12 2004 |
GEORGE This tip does not work for me - the FTP option is dimmed and I can only select an HTTP server. What should I do?
(Version 9/08/04) | |
| Sep 12 2004 |
ANONYMOUS it appears that ftp has been disabled in the .mac version of Virex. I'm not sure on this, but I experience the same behavior. I even edited the prefs plist directly to select an ftp server and it switches back. maybe you set up an http mirror of the ftp server it would work. i might do that on my computer (local mirror) might work.
(Version 9/08/04) | |
| Sep 14 2004 |
MARK D. Thank you, Joe! I feel like a hunter/gatherer who just stumbled upon a grocery store. All this time I thought the eUpdate was a useless feature.
(Version 9/08/04) | |
| Sep 30 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Tried customising the server settings as you instructed but was not able to enter FTP in "type". The option remained greyed out>
(Version 9/29/04) | |
| Oct 3 2004 |
KAITLYN For some odd reason it tells me that it cannot update because my hard drive doesn't have enough space? I have 131GB available
(Version 9/29/04) | |
| Oct 13 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Thanks! Worked perfectly.
(Version 10/06/04) | |
| Oct 18 2004 |
i still get a message saying that virex cannot connect to the eupdate server. i did the instructions Joe said, any ideas?
(Version 10/14/04) | |
| Nov 1 2004 |
DARYL I did what you say but the eupdate promt me i have not enough hard disk space but i have 42gz free on my hard disk? how can the eupdate be such a big file?
(Version 10/27/04) | |
| Jul 28 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Has anyone ever heard of a Mac OS X virus? I used virus protection for years, including Virex - and I've NEVER had a SINGLE virus. Then I got rid of it.
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| [ 3 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jul 28 2004 |
JOE Though you may never have had a virus on your computer, hackers for some reason like to cause trouble and it will only be a matter of time before they come after Mac's. Since more and more people are buying Mac's it's inevitable that they will come after them one day also. You can't be too safe!
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| Jul 28 2004 |
DANA SUTTON Bought my first Mac in 1986, have only had one virus. Which was acquired in (heh, heh) my university's computer repair shop. Other than that, I too am skeptical about Mac viruses. Unless, of course, you're running Virtual PC.
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| Aug 6 2004 |
TS OSX virus hitting now is W32@.Netsky.P@mm. I'd load virus protection again!
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| Jul 28 2004 |
ANONYMOUS If you use Get DAT Updates by Bery Rinaldo (http://homepage.mac.com/beryrinaldo/Tools/Get_DAT_Updates/), you can update your DAT filez much more frequently than with eUpdate. E.g. the latest update listed here at MU dates from July 21, while the one you can get with Rinaldo's lil app is dated July 26 (!!!)
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 28 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Instead of waiting for monthly updates, I've subscribed to receive weekly DAT file, in order to stay up-to-date with virus definitions. If necessity arises, DAT file is released more than once a week. There is extensive help in Terminal, but I haven't figured it out substantially to, e.g. create a shell script which would self-update /usr/local/vscanx folder contents.
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 25 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Is there actually a need for Virex on a mac? I've been using it for years and have never seen a virus on it.
(Version 7/21/04) | |
| Jul 13 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I agree. Why does the Eupdate rarely work? Apple should really get there act togehter on this. If they want my $$ again, they are going to have to!
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 2 2004 |
IAIN M why doesn't e-update work? I don't get it. I am getting ready to renew my .mac membership, but may reconsider.
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jul 2 2004 |
ANONYMOUS it works just fine, you need to read the tips in these reviews and you will find tips to make it work.
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| Jul 1 2004 |
ANONYMOUS 1°) Virex is free with .mac 2°) At this time Virex (*) is useless on OS X: no virus. 3°) But: it can delete a virus for Windows. It is useful only when dealing with Windows computers. And it is free and stable, so it's good to use it.
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jul 16 2004 |
G Partially incorrect. There's ONE virus (a trojan horse) for Mac, going around masquerading as a demo of Word2004 for Mac. Double-clicking on it will erase your home directory.
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| Jul 1 2004 |
SPIMSPAMSPOM thank god! a new virus defs update file. that'll protect me from those hundreds of mac OSX virii that have appeared since the last update ... which protected us from the hundreds of mac OSX virii which had appeared since the update before that... which... etc... etc... all the way to the bank [for virex] - nice work if you can get it!
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 1 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Why running an antivirus on a Macintosh? Because we Mac users are good people: when dealing with poor souls using this crap called Windows, we try to send them virus free files. LOL
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jun 16 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I don't understand people who run anti-virus software on a platform with no known viruses, and only a couple of extremely marginal 'exploits'. Perhaps these are the same people who use those disposable lysol wipes all the time.
(Version 6/10/04) | |
| [ 3 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jul 1 2004 |
COMMUNICATOR Because Apple gave Virex free with a .Mac account!
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| Jul 2 2004 |
FERRETLOVER To avoid accidently passing on Windows virii to those poor, unfortunate souls.
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| Jul 2 2004 |
IAIN M I like those lysol type things - you wait until you have less than 24 hours to move - ha
(Version 6/25/04) | |
| Jun 15 2004 |
ANONYMOUS excellent
(Version 6/10/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 25 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Woud not operate without it.
(Version 5/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 15 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Those who would like to get more frequent DAT updates may want to give a try to Bery Rinaldo's excellent "Get Dat Update." A great lil app and worth every cents spent on it -- it's freeware. :-) http://homepage.mac.com/beryrinaldo/Tools/Get_DAT_Updates/ My two cents.
(Version 5/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 15 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Excellent with .mac. Good value, good stability. Better than Virus Barrier and these crappy applications. I can trust Virex to find (Windows lol) virus and it won't crash my computer (Norton, Intego, are you listening?).
(Version 5/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 14 2004 |
THEL For any who might be wondering... McAfee's info page on the first MP3 proof-of-concept pseudo-trojan (a.k.a. "MacOS/Amphimix") is here... http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_101173.htm ...and it was covered in the 04-14-04 DAT update. (It's listed in the Virlist.txt doc under "TROJAN HORSE PROGRAMS/MALWARE.") The info page on this latest supposed-Word-demo trojan (a.k.a. "MacOS/MW2004") is here... http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_125299.htm ....and it will be covered in the 05/19/04 DAT release. [I'm giving Virex 7 for Mac OS X only 4 stars in the Features & Ease of Use categories due to the fact that, though a single file/folder can be drop-scanned, the app must be manually quit afterward. A little "DropScan" app, as was included in the classic OS versions, would be handy!]
(Version 5/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 14 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Complain, complain, complain! Write your own software. Or you can use Intego's, where they seem to discover a non-existing virus so they can sell you an updater....and whom else better to write you a solution to a new virus than a French company.
(Version 5/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 14 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Virex is a waste of a program.. When the mp3 concept, and the new msword demo trojan came out i contacted them looking to see if they would address it. Their response was to call an overseas #.. Being in america i was not calling overseas for a support ?, so i emailed.. They never responded. .MAC responded in saying that virex was #1 in virus protection and alway continue to track the latest viruses.. Blah blah blah.. The truth is they havnt responded because niether norton , or mcafee care, they both see mac as an (also have) line of product.. Plus why shld we as paying customers have to search an ftp server for automatic updates .. They should be provided correctly.. I give virex a more realistic 2 stars .. just for being a mac app
(Version 5/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 27 2004 |
ESCHER I use Virex 7.2 as part of Apple's .Mac service. The virus definitions on Apple's HTTP server were always posted weeks after McAfee released them. Pathetic! What's the point of virus software if it can't access the latest definitions? I changed the settings as suggested by Brent below, and now Virex finally has timely access to up-to-date defintions. 5 Stars for Virex, 5 Stars for including Virex in .Mac and 1 Star for Apple's lackluster support.
(Version 4/21/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 8 2004 |
DAVID STELLY After scanning some files, Virex 7 seems to hang (spinning color wheel) when running on OSX 10.2.6. New DAT files are in place. Any suggestions?
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 27 2004 |
CHARLOTTE JORDAN I get that too. Its ok with 20 or so items, but anymore and then it gets symied.
(Version 4/21/04) | |
| Mar 28 2004 |
ANONYMOUS perfect
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 8 2004 |
2. Go to the Preferences pane. 3. Check "Customize my eUpdate server settings" 4. Click the "Server Settings" button. 5. Enter the information as follows: * Server URL: ftp.nai.com * directory: /virusdefs/mac/virex7/ Click OK twice: first to exit the server settings, and again to exit the preferences. Click on eUpdate, and it should download and install the most recent virus definitions.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| [ 12 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 12 2004 |
JOHN DENNISON Thanks. Brent! That worked fine for me...
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 19 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I tried this fix without success. The following error message now appears whenever I try using eUpdate: Virex is unable to connect to the eUpdate server. Please try again later. You can skip the eUpdate and continue using Virex. What do I do now?
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 19 2004 |
NATCH what now? you update Virex manually. when the monthly DAT (virus definitions) file comes out, download it and install it. simple.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 25 2004 |
MACWERKS Yes, thank you, Brent. If only Virex would hire you, we could avoid much frustration. ;-)
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| Mar 26 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I tried your advice and it connects and asks for the administrator password and then gives me the following error message: "There is not enough hard disk space to download and install this eUpdate." Oh well. Back to the manual updates and/or the weekly .dat updates.
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| Mar 26 2004 |
NICMAC Brent, thanks for being so generous with your knowledge. I hope Virex pays attention to this also.
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| Mar 26 2004 |
BEZIERBOY Regarding "not enough room on your HD": I got this too. Just try the update again. Worked on the second try for me. Note that the manual download yields a file named V7040324, with no extension. It is in fact a .gz gzipped file and will decompress if opened with Stuffit Expander. Someone goofed here. I didn't have to manually set the eUpdate server settings on any of the corporate Virex 7.2 editions I maintain at work, just the .Mac version I have at home, which gets its updates off Apple's .Mac defs site, not NAI's. Apple seems to be dropping the ball here a bit, but the solution is easy. FYI Virex 7.5 is due soon. I'm hoping it does "push" via my company's network the way Virex 6 did in OS 9.
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| Mar 28 2004 |
MLWELLS Regarding "not enough room on your HD": I got this too. Just try the update again. NOGO.Shut down/restarted Virex; e update worked fine. Thanks for the fix
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| Apr 16 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I downloaded the latest update (V704324) when prompted ealrier this month. However, just like the previous version, it does not appear to be working since the initial scan only takes one second and the EICAR test document is not found. Any suggestions on how to get the new version to work or do I need to switch to Norton?
(Version 3/25/04) | |
| Apr 27 2004 |
TRIBULATIO Many thanks to Brent! I was myself about to give up Virex (included in my .Mac subscription) due to that delay in updating, and this has solved my problem!
(Version 4/21/04) | |
| May 2 2004 |
SOMEWHATFACETIOUS WORKS GREAT! Had... emphasize HAD... issue with "Not Enough Disk Space," and restarting Virex didn't work - restarting computer didn't even work. Checked settings over and over and over and overand over and over, and it still didn't work. Finally realized I forgot last "/" on directory setting. No problem at all! Funny, I NEVER make mistakes! I'll mark this one on the calendar for historical measure. J. Facetious Wan
(Version 4/21/04) | |
| May 12 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I finally bit the bullet and upgraded to MacOS 10.3.3. That solved all the problems I've been having with Virex 7 since January.
(Version 4/21/04) | |
| Mar 7 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Excellent antivirus when dealing with the Windows world. Very stable and reliable. Bye bye Norton AV aka "the bug" :)
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 6 2004 |
BEZIERBOY Regarding Virex not updating itself: Wait a couple of days, maybe until Monday. The standalone updater nearly always comes first by 2-3 days before eUpdate will pick up any updates. If this bothers you, download and install the update manually. This happens regardless of if you have a .Mac or enterprise (corporate) edition of Virex. Silly really, but apparently McAfee likes to do this this way. Just a matter of the update trickling through their bureaucracy I think, or a safety thing (manual update is like a beta test release before general eUpdate release.) If this is still not eUpdate available by, say, 3/10, THEN people should start emailing McAfee with "Where the hell is this"-type emails.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 5 2004 |
JSAWYER Same problem here. I'm glad I'm not the only one it's not working for. I paid good money for .Mac assuming Virex would work.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 5 2004 |
INGENIOUS1 I have the same problem. The program dosent seem to be working as far as updating itself for the new anti virus definitions.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 7 2004 |
ANONYMOUS How do you know its working? - or not. The messages that come back are cryptic: it either detected something, or it didn't (if you scan only). Then you need to scan it ALL allover again - & delete what MAY or may not be a virus, or could a component of something that was supposed to be there. I see no capability to assess the specific files.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 5 2004 |
ANONYMOUS After upgrading to the January 29 version of Virex 7 on my iMAC (System 10.1.5), the program doesn't appear to be working properly. The initial scan at opening only takes one second and doesn't find the EICAR test file that I created as instructed in the release notes for this latest version. I've tried reloading the program several times with thesame results. Are other Mac users experiencing the same problem?
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| [ 4 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 5 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Yes. Same thing happens to me too.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 6 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I just downloaded the latest version of Virex (V7040303.pkg) dated 3/05/04 from this Web site. After installing the software and rebooting my computer, the initial scan took two seconds and still did not find the EICAR test file. This update doesn't appear to have solved the problem that I was having earlier.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 7 2004 |
ALEX TAYLOR I was having the same problems lately, but figured once I updated the DATs it would work. However, even with the new DATs, it still only takes 3 seconds to "scan" all my local volumes (15 GB worth) and this problem is starting to get me almost more mad at .Mac than McAfee, the producer of Virex. And with some friends' PCs telling them that emails I send (or attached Word documents) contain viruses, I am beginning to be very worried. Should I, given that Apple suport always says "no one ever makes viruses for Macs".
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 7 2004 |
ALEX ok, I spent lots of time on this tonight, and most info can be found at the following McAfee forum site. http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/viewforum.php?f=18 I tried the manual update and I've got it working now, but I did have to reinstall and then learn how to use terminal for the first time... fun but time consuming. they say they'll have a fix to the problem, but can't say when.
(Version 3/05/04) | |
| Mar 4 2004 |
ANONYMOUS All I can say is where is update post 01/29/04; i.e., 02/28/04?
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 4 2004 |
SHEESH try clicking the download link on this page. or if you are skeptical, click on the More Info link and see for yourself that version 040129 (01/29/04) was released on 02/03/04 get a clue.
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| Mar 4 2004 |
CARRAMBA If you think there should be a more recent version available then complain to McAfee about it.
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| Mar 4 2004 |
MARIANNE VAN MAARSCHALKERWAART This message I get every time. What's wrong?? "Your virus definitions (DAT files) were last updated January 29, 2004, and may be out of date. Â Please download and install new ones as soon as possible." I had the latest update as far as I can see. I am a .Mac user!
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 3 2004 |
BROTHERGRIZ here, also 1/29/04, may need updating. Manually found and seemingly installed 2/03/04 update for 7. Still showing 1/29. Also ran test suggested in read me and three scans since have not located that code. Am I from mars? 10.2.8
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 3 2004 |
IMPISH Strange, the file name includes the date 1/29/04, but file info shows that it was released 3/2/04. Has MacUpdate linked to the old file, or has it misnamed the right one?
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 3 2004 |
MU ADMIN Neither. The file is labeled correctly and was released on the day posted. Ask McAfee why they did it that way. And you'd know the answer to your question if you would just check the McAfee page. One click on the More Info link and, bang, you have the answer to your question.
(Version 01/29/04) | |
| Mar 1 2004 |
ANONYMOUS "Your virus definitions (DAT files) were last updated January 29, 2004, and may be out of date. Â Please download and install new ones as soon as possible". Well, i'd certainly like to do that, but Virex 7.2 won't let me. Each time I try to run eUpdate, I get the same message that I quoted, above, again and again. What is the problem, and how do I fix it? And, in the meantime, how do I manually install the current virus definitions?
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 1 2004 |
GO FIGURE Manual install... Well, it's really difficult. First, click on the download link on this MacUpdate page... Then when you have the file on your desktop, you double-click it.
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| Mar 2 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I don't think that the new defs for March have been released. I believe that the program has an internal mechanism that tells the user that the defs may be out of date if a certain number of days have passed since the last update, even if there isn't a new defs file available.
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| Feb 7 2004 |
BARBARA SHIRLEY I have virex 7.1 . It seems to be working fine but I always get a message that my DAT files haven't been updated since 5/08/02. Why?
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 7 2004 |
MU ADMIN Because you have not updated your DAT files. DAT files are also commonly known as 'virus definitions', every virus has a fingerprint/footprint/profile and an anti-virus app needs to have its definitions updated, monthly, to reflect any/all changes in said virii. Download the latest DAT file and install it, simple.
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| Feb 5 2004 |
BRUCE Although Virex 7 seems to function as it should, I don't understand why it's not updating the defintions report when it's lauched. The report says: "Your virus definitions were last updated on January 29, 2004, and appear to be up to date." That's not true... I just ran the DAT definition update today! Like others have commented, the e-update is not working either.
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 27 2004 |
A M My virus definitions are the same? Why does it not automatically update? Is something wrong?
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| Feb 3 2004 |
ANONYMOUS it does the job and is free with .mac
(Version 01/12/04) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 19 2004 |
GILESG I have Virex 7.2 installed, but for the past few weeks, it has been insisting that it cannot find the e-update server. Has this changed? Do I need to reconfigure virex somehow?
(Version 01/12/03) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 1 2004 |
DAISY I have not been able to update my virex. Pleas let me know what I need to do.
(Version 01/12/03) | |
| Feb 27 2004 |
A M try putting in your .mac email and pw. i was getting that message until i updated it. go to that apple icon, and sys.tem prefferences. update it there as well
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| Jan 12 2004 |
ANONYMOUS When's the last time anyone actually ran across a virus (macro word things aside) anyway? When I switched to MOX I forgot all about viruses and since I don't use Word I don't think I'm at much of a risk.
(Version 01/12/03) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jan 12 2004 |
WHATEVER You, we, all of us on Mac OS have, historically, been much more than less immune to the issues of virii, etc. (with the notable exception of SevenDust and maybe one or two others back in OLD Mac OS). But 'paranoia', in moderation, is not such a bad thing. You know the old saying, 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Surely, soon enough OS X will have some issue pop up, created by some weenie that despises Apple/OS X. Any day now. And since I have not had to pay for Virex since I first bought it in 1995 (?) because of the free update path I have enjoyed (other may have had other experiences with their upgrade paths), I continue to use it in OS X (10.3.2).
(Version 01/12/03) | |
| Feb 3 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Also, it's important to practice safe computing to avoid infecting Windows MS Office users. For example, my colleague received, according to Norton AV, a "malicious virus" in a Word document although Mac Virex 7.2 (with latest files) didn't recognize it.
(Version 02/03/04) | |
| Jan 12 2004 |
LOQUESEA ditto... never any issues with Virex on my machines since I started using it back in Mac OS 7.5 Version 7.2.1 (.Mac) on an iBook @ 900MHz
(Version 01/12/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 12 2004 |
CDANTHONY No problem's here. Been using Virex since the days before Dr Solomon. Too many whiners here in my opinion
(Version 01/12/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 2 2003 |
ANONYMOUS excellent, works great in jag & pantr
(Version 12/01/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 2 2003 |
MACMAN X To all the people who complain about not have Auto-Update, just add this to your watch list. You'll be notified via email when an update comes out. The email will even have a hotlink to this page in which you can download and install the update. Perfect 5 stars in attempt to counteract your misguided votes.
(Version 12/01/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 31 2003 |
YEAHPANTHERRULZMAN good software, free with .mac, works with Panther, beats Nortrash Bugtivirus :)
(Version 031029) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Aug 30 2003 |
BEZIERBOY This particular update was available via eUpdate at no more than 3 hours (and possibly less, as I wasn't online the moment it was listed) after its listing on MacTracker. Previously, it had taken 2-3 days for this to be true. Looks like someone's on the ball at McAfee. We'll see if they do as well next time.
(Version 2003-8-27) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Nov 15 2003 |
BEZIERBOY Nope, not with the November 12th one at least. Oh well, they did pretty well at that for a while. Maybe next time.
(Version 031112) | |
| Jul 25 2003 |
SEBRIEL /X\ Auto-Update should be FOR EVERYONE!! c'mon Apple!!
(Version 7/24/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jun 2 2003 |
BEZIERBOY Note that these always appear as a standalone download well before they're available via Virex's built-in eUpdate. I use the .Mac edition, so if you have the store-bought, YMMV.
(Version 6/01/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 13 2003 |
ALFREDO Yeah, better safe, it hasn't hurt anything. It did discover a possible infected file. I deleted it, and everything is hunky dory.
(Version 5/13/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 13 2003 |
ANONYMOUS 1. It is foolish not to take virus protection seriously. Although rare, a Mac virus can really screw up your day. 2. Auto-updating is a problem when you have a workstation that doesn't have internet access. It would be better to have a choice, which Live Update doesn't give you for its software updates, only for the virus defs. If I don't have a choice then I just want to download the installer. 3. I use both brands; Virex X is not as good as Virex 9, but still (slightly) better than its competition. They both need to act like Macs are important to them.
(Version 5/13/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 2 2003 |
BETTERSAFETHANSORRY It only takes one virus to ruin your day. I don't know how good VireX is because in the 8 years of Mac use, I haven't had any infection of any type, and Virex has not found one. So either none has been sent, or Virex is missing them. So far VireX hasn't found anything, but I see it like the gun in the night stand. I give it good ratings because, it has not done any harm.
(Version 02/03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Dec 5 2002 |
ANONYMOUS What a joke virus protetion isnt need. If u r getting a virus you are stupid. I have never gotten a virus and been on mac for 13 yrs now.
(Version 12/01/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 16 2002 |
ANONYMOUS as a .mac member using it.... but not really happy about
(Version 11/14/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 2 2002 |
WOLF Virex for OS9 was great. And it included scheduled updates. The OSX version is incredibly slow and is buggy (try dragging multiple disk images to be scanned and read the results carefully). NAI offers NO support. Buy something else.
(Version 11/1/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 2 2002 |
ANONYMOUS I really, REALLY liked Virex for Classic a lot more than this OS X version- it was EXTREMELY fast, first and foremost. Pssst... Rooster... Virex has NEVER had auto-updating... unless Apple pays NAI to have them implement it.
(Version 11/1/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 18 2002 |
ROOSTER AUTO-UPDATE PLEASE!!! Apple has introduced the its first desktop OS that incorporates full internet integration and these guys can't even produce a security solution that can auto-update its self. I would have given this app "5" for Ease, Value, and Stability, but if I have to be worrying all the time if it is up to date to protect my machine then its not a good thing. i gave it a "1" for features because the lack of auto-update is a killer need.
(Version 10/15/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 16 2002 |
ANONYMOUS Auto Update....p-lease can somehow at that company pleeeeeese built this function in!
(Version 10/15/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 5 2002 |
ANONYMOUS very helpfull
(Version 10/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 2 2002 |
ANONYMOUS WHEN WILL THEY OFFER AUTO-UPDATES OF THE V'DEFS ??? B.t.w., too many crashes...
(Version 10/02) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
|
Main
