Skip to main content

Apple recommending OSX anti-virus? Is this true, do I run out and buy it?

As others have pointed out on November 21st, Apple silently recommends anti-virus products for OSX.
"Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult."

This isn't as clearly written as many of the other Apple support articles, and there are a few related topics which should have more clarity.
  1. Who is the audience for this advice? Is it the majority of non-technical mac owners who are unaware of the types of malware? Or is it all OSX users?
  2. Are they also recommended that multiple, as in more than one, anti-virus utilities be used at once? If so how many are recommended, two, three?
Apple also has a handful of other references to anti-virus on OSX 10.5. As stated in a support article from April:

"6) Check for Viruses
Macs are far more less likely to get a computer virus like Windows PCs are prone to but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you don't already have antivirus software, you may want to consider making a purchase. If you have the software installed, be sure to keep your virus definitions up to date—you can find the latest updates on your software manufacturer's website."

Again Apple recommends considering purchasing this software, but doesn't supply any criteria to help a user with this consideration.

When looking at OSX 10.5 security features Apple provides a brief description of ways that Leopard protects the user from potentially harmful practices of downloading and running malicious programs, but other than sandboxing and alerting users to potentially unsafe downloads, there isn't much information in this marketing material.

Digging a bit deeper though, shows slightly more information. Apple has published a security tech brief for 10.5. This document provides a really good description of each of the security features in 10.5. I've extracted a few which in my opinion are the most relevent to preventing malware infections - which most anti-virus software helps to do.
  1. User permissions model. By default OSX operates with restricted user access (unless you configure it otherwise). This means that regular users, and even administrative users, do not have access to modify items in the "system" domain without additional authorization. So even if Safari is susceptible to some vulnerability, or a bad email attachment is run, it likely won't be able to escape the user's limited access.
  2. Runtime Protection. OSX like other modern operating systems does provide protection from common virus behaviour like buffer overflows and other memory and execution vulnerabilities. 10.5 uses execute disable, library randomization and sandboxing to keep applications from hijacking system execution.
Still, nowhere in this more detailed tech brief does apple mention the recommendation to install and use anti-virus software. So where does this leave us? Should we follow Apple's recent, albeit quiet, advice to install ClamavX?

My personal opinion on this, is that anti-virus has become a more of a security risk than control. Wha?! Before you discredit this post let me explain.

My opinion is based on anti-virus software use by 99% of the Internet community, people who haven't been educated on how virus' work, are spread, and cause damage. These people likely have been affected by a virus infection in the past, and after a co-worker calls them to inform them that they've been sending infected messages out, take their computers to the local big-box retailer and they sell them an anti-virus product after re-imaging their PC.

Further more, lets also assume that the best of these anti-virus products are effective in stopping 99% of the virus's encountered, which is ridiculously high but illustrates my argument well.

For this average user, they have now been comforted that as they open the email attachment from the prince of Nigeria, that the anti-virus software will catch and protect them from the malicious program which will make their PC a part of the growing population of botnets. But now lets assume that 1 out of every 100 attempts will still be successful in by-passing the anti-virus software, and now this user is infected again.

This comfort and confidence is the problem - if this user had learned the basics about how malware works and is spread, and been educated on the simple day-to-day activities which put them at risk, I would argue that at some point, this knowledge would be more effective at stopping the infection than the anti-virus software.

So does anti-virus software make us less secure? Not really, it's the false sense of security it invokes and confidence in these solutions to make us 100% secure that make us less secure.

My recommendation for the majority of Internet users is to gain and maintain awareness of activities that make us susceptible to abuse, and as part of this education learn what anti-virus is good at, and use it for these purposes.

So Apple - Cudos on providing an operating system which reduces the ability for our computers to become infected, and reduce our reliance on anti-virus solutions, but I think more could be done to educate your customers on responsible secure Internet use.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Local Classified Penny Auction Scam

While there are a lot of new posts regarding the new ways to exploit people using novel techniques and 0day exploits, there continues to be a rash of tried and true methods of coercion.  I want to just walk through a simple example and reflect on how effective these methods continue to be. Many people turn toward online classified sites to buy and sell items online.  This example starts with kijiji.ca which even I've used on occasion to find used electronics and other items.  Doing a search on the site for a " Samsung Galaxy Note 2 " returns a posting from today with someone selling one for an unreasonably priced unit. $125 for a $500 phone?, but what if it's for real?  No harm in just asking some simple questions.  Email sent with some obvious questions regarding the condition and location. About an hour passes before I get a response from what appears to be a legit seller. Notice no answer to the questions I asked, but a friendly pointer at where th

Touch ID - Distributed Fingerprint Lookup

All the press regarding the new Touch ID fingerprint biometric on Apple's new iPhone has brought some insight into how to misuse this service.  Most of the critics have focused on circumventing the device to gain access or Apple deciding to share the data with the Government. One interesting perspective that I haven't seen covered yet is if the system could be used as a distributed matching system for existing fingerprint image systems.  In an over simplified view of the process, a law enforcement agency can take an acquired fingerprint and search for patterns in the database of collected prints and spit out possible matches. Although Apple states that an API won't be available for apps, it is conceivable that such an interface might exist, and provide the ability to take an acquired print (either from the iPhone hardware or from software) and check it for validity against the stored print. There are some limits to this, as there is likely only going to be one prin

Announcing new team member - Benoit Desforges

I'm very pleased to announce that we've added another significant resource to our team.  Our new advisor Benoît Desforges brings international experience and a fresh perspective on information risk management. Prior to joining, Benoît worked for KPMG's advisory group, he holds several professional designations including CISSP, CISA, GCIH, and GAWN.  When he's not teaching advanced networking courses for a local university, Benoît enjoys travel and time with his family. Benoît will be providing our clients with security advice and building out a number of new and improved professional service offerings.  He'll also be regular contributor to our blog.  Congratulations Benoît!