Virex 7 Virus Definitions
Virex 7 Virus Definitions
10/29/08

4.8

Virex 7 Virus Definitions free download for Mac

Virex 7 Virus Definitions

10/29/08
29 October 2008

Virus definitions for Virex 7.x.

Overview

Virex Virus Definitions are released as needed. Also known as a DAT file, they hold information that allows the program Virex to eliminate the newest viruses, trojan horses, and other harmful things on your computer.

124 Virex 7 Virus Definitions Reviews

See all

Rate this app:

Leif-Heflin
03 March 2006

Most helpful

Mac viruses......riiiiiight.
Like (2)
Version 02/22/06
Lars70
03 October 2008
- - 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.
Like
Version 10/01/08
Lars70
20 September 2008
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.
Like (1)
Version 09/17/08
Olafalferink
27 December 2007
Be carefull version 7.7 does not work and version 8.x may delete your home folder. So you better keep away from this.
Like (2)
Version 12/26/07
resuna
03 August 2007
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.
Like (2)
Version 08/01/07
9 answer(s)
Donmontalvo
Donmontalvo
06 October 2007
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: 1. downloads folder 2. expanding files 3. nightly scan Don
Like (1)
Version 10/03/07
resuna
resuna
06 October 2007
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.
Like (2)
Version 10/03/07
Donmontalvo
Donmontalvo
06 October 2007
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. Don
Like
Version 10/03/07
resuna
resuna
07 October 2007
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.
Like (2)
Version 10/03/07
Donmontalvo
Donmontalvo
07 October 2007
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. Don
Like
Version 10/03/07
resuna
resuna
07 October 2007
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.
Like (2)
Version 10/03/07
resuna
resuna
07 October 2007
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.
Like (2)
Version 10/03/07
Donmontalvo
Donmontalvo
07 October 2007
This isn't a developer forum.
Like
Version 10/03/07
Dalahast
Dalahast
15 November 2007
It's not a forum at all, actually.
Like (2)
Version 11/14/07
Beaner
21 October 2006
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 is…
Like
Version 10/18/06
1 answer(s)
Wondering
Wondering
12 April 2007
Intego VirusBarrier X ClamXav Tiger Cache Cleaner (which runs ClamXav) Symantec Norton AntiVirus as well as this McAfee Virex. ... in no particular order ...
Like (2)
Version 4/11/07
Micky1
19 May 2006
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/15850
Like
Version 6/17/06
Leif-Heflin
03 March 2006
Mac viruses......riiiiiight.
Like (2)
Version 02/22/06
2 answer(s)
Alexf
Alexf
12 August 2006
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
Like
Version 8/09/06
Zetsurin
Zetsurin
22 December 2006
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.
Like
Version 12/20/06
Leoofborg
30 December 2005
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.
Like
Version 12/28/05
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.
Like
Version 12/14/05
5 answer(s)
MaryW<comartdw@cableone-net>
MaryW<comartdw@cableone-net>
15 December 2005
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.
Like
Version 12/14/05
MacUpdate-Lon
MacUpdate-Lon
15 December 2005
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.
Like
Version 12/14/05
MaryW<comartdw@cableone-net>
MaryW<comartdw@cableone-net>
15 December 2005
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.
Like
Version 12/14/05
Commander-Lazenby
Commander-Lazenby
16 December 2005
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.
Like
Version 12/14/05
MaryW<comartdw@cableone-net>
MaryW<comartdw@cableone-net>
16 December 2005
Thanks Commander -- yes I meant NAV but am also not a fan of DD either.
Like
Version 12/14/05
umaromc
15 December 2005
You can get Virex for Mac from McAfee but, at least online, you can purchase no less than 5 seats (which costs over $200!)!
Like
Version 12/14/05
Free

4.8

App requirements: 
  • PPC 32
  • or later
Category: 
Developer Website: 
Download(48 MB)

Downloaded & Installed 242,267 times