Back to Virex 7 Virus Definitions page
Virex 7 Virus Definitions free download for Mac

Virex 7 Virus Definitions Reviews

10/29/08
29 October 2008

Virus definitions for Virex 7.x.

Leif-Heflin
03 March 2006

Most helpful

Mac viruses......riiiiiight.
Like (2)
Version 02/22/06

Read 124 Virex 7 Virus Definitions User Reviews

Rate this app:

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
Anonymous
20 October 2005
No 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.
Like
Version 10/19/05
Anonymous
15 October 2005
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.
Like
Version 10/12/05
AVFolk
13 October 2005
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.
Like
Version 10/12/05
Db2
07 October 2005
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?
Like
Version 9/28/05
Anonymous
22 September 2005
I think that some people might like to have a look at ClamXav. It is free and quite good.
Like (1)
Version 9/21/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
27 September 2005
Keep elephants way, does it?
Like
Version 9/21/05
Anonymous
02 September 2005
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.
Like (1)
Version 8/31/05
2 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
03 September 2005
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?
Like
Version 8/31/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
27 September 2005
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.
Like
Version 9/21/05
Anonymous
18 August 2005
So if there are no known viruses designed to exploit OSX and this is a virus fighting program, who is doing the exploiting then?
Like
Version 8/17/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
23 August 2005
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.
Like
Version 8/17/05
Mark
18 August 2005
To Anonymous 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. Mark
Like
Version 8/17/05
Anonymous
18 August 2005
Virex is a joke, and I'm starting to believe .Mac is too.
Like
Version 8/17/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
02 September 2005
You, my friend, are a joke.
Like
Version 8/31/05
Anonymous
04 August 2005
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.
Like
Version 8/03/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
18 August 2005
Virex 7 will not be for individuals, but only for corporate licenses. It's not a viable solution.
Like
Version 8/17/05
Anonymous
15 July 2005
ClamXav is simplier and much more useable.
Like
Version 7/13/05
Anonymous
23 June 2005
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.
Like
Version 6/22/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
05 August 2005
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.
Like
Version 8/03/05
Anonymous
12 June 2005
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.
Like
Version 6/08/05
Anonymous
03 June 2005
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.
Like
Version 6/01/05
6 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
03 June 2005
Have a look at clamXav, free and based on opensource.
Like
Version 6/01/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
03 June 2005
It's a known issue that Virex does not work with 10.4.
Like
Version 6/01/05
DrG
DrG
03 June 2005
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.
Like
Version 6/01/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
19 June 2005
Mine does not update either. I feel pretty ripped off, because that's why I bought .mac---for the virus protection.
Like
Version 6/15/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
19 June 2005
You bought .mac for virus protection? There are no viruses for OS X. You are a certified dumbass.
Like
Version 6/15/05
Austin-Nolan
Austin-Nolan
24 June 2005
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.
Like
Version 6/22/05
Anonymous
03 June 2005
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. TC.
Like
Version 6/01/05
DrG
22 May 2005
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!!!
Like
Version 5/18/05
2 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
06 June 2005
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?
Like
Version 6/01/05
Riphly
Riphly
23 June 2005
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?
Like
Version 6/15/05
Shk747
12 May 2005
it's known, that tiger does'nt support virex anymore ! but, no panic, we are gladly not windowsusers ....
Like
Version 5/11/05
30 April 2005
virex v 7.5.1 fails to work with TIGER OS X v 10.4, what gives?
Like
Version 4/27/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
07 May 2005
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
Like
Version 4/27/05
Anonymous
28 April 2005
just installed tiger and virex does not work
Like
Version 4/27/05
Anonymous
28 April 2005
what's the point in updating Virex if it doesn't work porperly under Tiger? =(
Like
Version 4/27/05
Franco
28 April 2005
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!
Like
Version 4/27/05
Anonymous
22 April 2005
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?
Like
Version 4/20/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
23 April 2005
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.
Like
Version 4/20/05
Shk747
08 April 2005
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 ....
Like
Version 4/6/05
Anonymous
08 April 2005
Worked simply well updating defs & engine! Thanks
Like
Version 4/6/05
Shk747
08 April 2005
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 ...
Like
Version 4/6/05
2 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
08 April 2005
sorry for your butt, being such a hater! Maybe your knowledge about using applications the way you where instructed is very little?
Like
Version 4/6/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
08 April 2005
just forgot to take his/her lithium methinks
Like
Version 4/6/05
Mark
02 April 2005
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.
Like
Version 3/30/05
Anonymous
31 March 2005
Request: 1. Scan e-mail documents and their attachments from the Wincrap crowd 2. Speed 3. Speed 4. Speed - I mean dang, give me back my CPU, allow me to shut down without going for coffee, fast user switching…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 :-)
Like
Version 3/30/05
Shk747
30 March 2005
hi "developers", 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 ! regards sascha
Like
Version 3/30/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
30 March 2005
I have to agree. The installation of periodic updates is klutzy and annoying, there should be an easier way.
Like
Version 3/30/05
Anonymous
09 March 2005
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.   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.   There is currently a discussion going on in the MacEnterprise mailing list about the necessity of virus scanners.   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."
Like
Version 03/02/05
4 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
23 March 2005
(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.
Like
Version 03/23/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
24 March 2005
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.
Like
Version 03/23/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
24 March 2005
(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!"
Like
Version 03/23/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
30 March 2005
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.
Like
Version 3/30/05
Sanjin
03 March 2005
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."
Like
Version 03/02/05
Anonymous
21 February 2005
"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! .
Like
Version 02/21/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
30 March 2005
Yeah!, You should show them what's up by not updating yours
Like
Version 3/30/05
Anonymous
21 February 2005
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?
Like
Version 02/21/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
21 February 2005
Evolution speed of virus is getting faster....
Like
Version 02/21/05
Anonymous
10 February 2005
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.
Like
Version 02/09/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
17 February 2005
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
Like
Version 02/16/05
Anonymous
09 February 2005
Crippleware? It's pretty much identical to the retail version. You want to cripple your computer? Use Norton.
Like
Version 02/09/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
10 February 2005
"You want to cripple your computer? Use Norton." *ROTFL!!!!* Too true! (-:
Like
Version 02/09/05
garbage
04 February 2005
"Get DAT Updates 1.4" is a free tool that installs the weekly updates into .Mac crippleware version of Virex.
Like
Version 02/03/05
Brian-Cork
04 February 2005
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
Like
Version 02/03/05
2 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
04 February 2005
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.
Like
Version 02/03/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
09 February 2005
Uhm...so do viruses . (virii?vira?)
Like
Version 02/09/05
Anonymous
04 February 2005
WOW! another "virus definition"! in this days were created a "lot" of new viruses for Mac, is the reason for continuos updates... s@cks!
Like
Version 02/03/05
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
09 February 2005
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
Like
Version 02/09/05
Dremwkr
04 February 2005
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.
Like
Version 02/03/05
Anonymous
04 February 2005
worthless.. macs are invincible!
Like
Version 02/03/05
3 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
04 February 2005
YEAH! im agree with you...
Like
Version 02/03/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
04 February 2005
Well bragged both of you. But Macs can still propagate Win viruses hidden in e-mails.
Like
Version 02/03/05
Anonymous
Anonymous
10 February 2005
hey dude... 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!
Like
Version 02/09/05
Anonymous
04 February 2005
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.
Like
Version 02/03/05