Kaspersky Lab has released of a new product that protects Macs and other computers connected to Macs from all types of malware.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac is based on Kaspersky Lab’s new antivirus engine which dramatically increases system scanning speed thanks to improved processing of objects and optimized use of system resources, particularly on dual- and quad-core processor platforms.
The new product for Mac OS X (versions 10.4.11 and higher) combines the advantages of the new antivirus engine with a security approach that is based on protecting home or corporate networks from multiplatform IT threats. Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac protects against Mac OS malware (Trojans) as well as combating similar threats, including viruses, Trojans, and worms for Windows and Linux operating systems.
The release of Mac OS X made the interaction of multiplatform computers considerably easier and Mac computers have now become an integral part of many corporate and home networks. These unprotected machines are like open gates through which malicious programs can penetrate any computer in a network which, in some organizations, could result in tens of thousands of machines being affected.
In order to protect Windows PCs on mixed networks more effectively, Kaspersky Lab’s new product has access to the company’s global antivirus database that includes information on more than 20 million malicious programs for a range of platforms. The antivirus databases for Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac are updated hourly, as are the company’s antivirus products for Windows and Unix operating systems. This ensures that users are protected against the very latest malware that appear in large numbers for multiple platforms every day on the Internet.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac scans files and email attachments downloaded from the Internet. The new product is also exceptional for its distributed use of system resources: when user activity increases, the priority of the antivirus scanner declines, offering the user complete access to the computer’s system resources and increasing the performance of user applications.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac also protects shared folders on virtual machines which are gaining in popularity with both corporate and home users. This prevents the transfer of malware from Windows or Unix virtual systems to the work environment, which is of great importance for those working with several operation systems on a Mac computer.
Being well aware that an attractive interface is a must for Mac applications, Kaspersky Lab has equipped its new product with an animated interface that is user-friendly both for novices and more experienced users. Information about the protection status and any necessary user actions are presented in a graphic format that is easy to understand. The new product includes an automated mode for operations with applications, which means the program takes decisions automatically and doesn’t bother users with unnecessary requests.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac was especially designed to meet the needs of the Mac OS X operating system, offering complete compatibility with all versions of the OS from 10.4.11. Other technical requirements include: a Macintosh with the Intel processor, 512 MB available RAM and 80 MB available hard drive space.
Find out more information here: www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky-anti-virus-for-mac
MacDailyNews Take: If you’re on a network with Windows boxes especially, even though the vast majority of malware will not run on Macs, you may wish to help protect Windows PCs which have difficulty protecting themselves. Nobody likes a Typhoid Mary, especially your company’s IT guy(s). So, even if your Mac is immune most malware, products such as this can prevent your Mac from being a carrier in mixed network situations. It’s a matter of being part of the solution (as efficiently as possible), not part of the problem, especially on corporate networks.
MacDailyNews Note: We have not tested Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac. This is merely news of its availability.
If I want to waste cycles, I’ll install SETI@Home.
I was watching a consumer program on tv last week and it was discussing vulnerabilities of using free wireless networks in cafes, etc. The guinea pig was using a Mac and the infiltrators demonstrated getting into his mail on the same network and sent him an email using his details to show they’d done so; they then went on to block him from quitting/ending his session. Is this possible? If so, any suggestions on software available to make open wireless more secure?
Quantum
Thing five: troll!
MDN:
Respectfully, I have a major issue with your take – this is a case of not-appropriate-for-internet-use technology (Windows) being connected to the internet. Yes, its very common, but that doesn’t mean its safe or wise.
Yes, there are partial bandaids for this inappropriate action – running AV, but why have two layers of bandaids and pollute the Macs with AV? To say nothing of purchase cost and cpu cycles (10-20% on Windows) as others have said.
Most corporations have elaborate firewalls that sniff out stuff, even blocking attachments, at some locations. And Mac users are supposed to run a 3rd bandaid?!
Why not put a bandaid layer on every router at every ISP, too? And every web server and every mail server? After all, they’re more directly involved in delivering the payload.
The Typhoid Mary analogy doesn’t match reality – the analogy is that people who are not Typhoid immune are swimming in pools of Typhoid bacteria – obviously the responsible thing is to be sure you’re Thyphoid immune before you go swimming in the pool, and neither #1 go to the doctor (AV vendor) after each swim for a shot or #2 complain about an immune swimmer (Mac, Linux, Unix) who splashes Typhoid infested water on you
For non technical people: if your computer runs as the administrator by default (like Windows, including Vista, and unlike OS X, Linux, Unix) it is dangerous (although, to be fair, common) to connect to the internet. You really should use technology designed for internet use.
Not running as the administrator allows the operating system to disallow modification – its like having a locked bank vault – nobody gets in without a key. Running as the administrator is like not having a vault – everybody can go touch the money.
ha ha – that’s 100% BS (or FUD), and you know it.
“The market share thing is not a myth”
Hmm, let me check… No, it’s still a myth.
Real hackers – the skilled ones who actually accomplish things – have no interested in hitting a platform because of the size of its user base. They hack for the challenge and noteriety of it. As it happens, breaking OS X is an extreme challenge and pulling it off would make who ever did it an instant celebrity.
No amount of bullshit from vested interests you can quote, or amount of FUD you can deposite, will turn the fantasy that Macs have been invulnerable to viruses for some 9 years because of “security through obscurity” into anything resembling the truth.
To paraphrase a slogan… It’s the Unix, stupid.
That’s the real life “magic fairy dust” protecting Macs, along with the fact that Apple’s software engineers aren’t continuously asleep at the wheel.
It is, however, pretty amusing to read that Windows is so much “tougher” to exploit than OS X. How much denial does a person have to be in to actually believe that when out here, in the real world, Windows is still drowning under a deluge of malware while OS X is uneffected by it? The only Mac malware in 9 years, infact, have been a handful unsuccessful trojans.
And yet hacking Macs is apparently so “easy” because they lack the “anti-exploit mitigations” of Windows. Uh huh…
I work in a Windows environment. I have had occasion to investigate the actual processing cost of the installed McAfee software on my work station running Windows XP Pro. The processing time cost is approximately 30%. This is because every file is checked every time it is manipulated in any way.
I use VPN to connect to my work accounts from home and elsewhere. I do so on a Mac. My Mac does not run any AV software.
I can see what Kaspersky’s strategy is here. They are counting on a scenario that says if they release Mac AV software and promote the Typhoid Mary strategy my IT department will REQUIRE me to install it, even though my Mac doesn’t need it. Whether I am forced to buy it, or my IT department provides it to me, somebody will be buying it. If neither of us wants to buy the AV software they will simply lock out my Mac, forcing me to use a PC, which will require Kaspersky’s software (admittedly stupid, but plausible).
In any event, they will have found a way to “market” their software to Mac users, who don’t need it, but will be required by corporate IT to use it anyway.
The real solution would be to require people to cease using products not designed for networking (Windows) on the internet.
Oh! And Quantum? Paid commentary on blogs is fairly transparent, even to the casual bystander. Try it elsewhere.
Isn’t the real difference between Macs and WinBoxs and the real reason that WinBoxes CAN get viruses is because ‘Admin’ on a WinPC is ‘Root’ [Level 1 user]. It is ON by default — and that many developers create their software EXPECTING ‘Root’.
On a WinPC — viruses implicitly HAVE permission to change the System Folder.
While on a Mac, ‘Admin’ is a [Level 2 user]. ‘Root’ [SuperUser] [Level 1 user] is turned OFF by default. And, making changes to the System Folder — while in Level 2 user — requires a password.
Quant – um, you are such a ninny. The first hacker to infect a Mac with a virus that could replicate itself in the wild would be world famous overnight. Why don’t you write one yourself, then you can come up into the sunlight, out of your mother’s basement.
Just to pile on a bit, here:
Recall, please, that back in the days of OS 9, there were several virii that infected Macs. Not many, to be sure, but more than zero.
The size of the Macintosh user base has increased a bit since then. Perhaps by, say, an order of magnitude or two? Those new machines, over the last nearly 10 years, all running OS X, have been afflicted by how many virii?
And how many new virii have come out for Windows since then?
Yep. It’s all about market share. uh, huh. You just keep repeating that, and maybe if you click your heels three times, you’ll wind up in Kansas.
@quantum:
“There is no magic fairy dust protecting Macs. Writing exploits for [Microsoft] Vista is hard work. Writing exploits for Mac is a lot of fun.”
Exploits, yes.
The problem is, people who write malware are not really interested in writing exploits and infecting single machines. Using exploits and infecting single machines are just means to an end, which is infecting other machines, building botnets and having the malware safely running, hidden on an infecting machine, all the time.
The latter part seems to be harder on Macs. If it weren’t, malware writers would already attacking Macs en masse as “open flood gates”.
Ahh, I just love the absurd mentality that Mac users should run AV software to protect Windows users who are too cheap to buy AV software themselves or too lazy to keep it current. Total BS. They deserve whatever they get, and if they don’t like it … they can pay a bit extra for a Mac, just like the rest of us did.
Cool. I will check this out when I get home. I love using Kaspersky’s Internet Security when I must use Windows.
This is bogus. If there were malicious programs can penetrate any computer in a network, the Windows machines would already be infected, unless they had anti-virus protection, and if they did, it wouldn’t matter if the Macs were carriers.
Well the link http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky-anti-virus-for-mac Takes us from New Zealand to Australia
no help at all and you get Not Found
The requested URL /kaspersky-anti-virus was not found on this server.
mmm no help for us
ClamXav +1
No reason to pay for this when such an excellent open and free (as in beer) solution is available. If you correctly do not want to be typhoid Mary in a mixed network, then just periodically scan using Clam. Clam ports are available for all major platforms and ClamAV is widely used by ISPs and enterprise networks. And did I mention that it costs nothing?
Kaspersky is the best anti-virus for a Windows box. It really works well and uses relatively little system resources (while running).
So, if you have a Windows box, use this one. I use it on my VMware fusion Windows XP VM. It does a very good job.
On the other hand, Kaspersky for OSX? I don’t think so. No Antivirus crap on my beautiful OSX machines.
Having said that, I do use LittleSnitch to keep track of who’s trying to get out. Yeah, I am a little paranoid. So what?
I have been running naked on the network for 25 years plus and no trouble yet.
The place where I work hasn’t demanded me to put antivirus on my Mac yet.
Why should I spend money to protect someone else’s Windows machine?