• Windows Defender is coming to Mac
    24 replies, posted
This makes sense from a business that uses macs and microsoft software to manage their computers, as Macs are prone to security vulnerabilities.
Oh how times have changed.
Mac has always been prone to security vulnerabilities. The only difference is they were never a statistically relevant share of the market so no one really made a big effort to produce malware for them. Of course that all changed when Apple decided to start using the "MACS DON'T GET VIRUS LOL" meme as a marketing slogan, doubled down on it multiple times and it all went down hill from there. That's what happens when you go turbo retard on a meme and actively work to silence anyone who called you out on your obvious BS.
Windows Defender is the best anti-virus right now.
I can't tell if WD is a good anti-virus or if I just don't download "contaminated material" anymore.
I used to use Kaspersky. I had no idea that Windows Defender was considered the best now, to be honest.
Is Microsoft integrating their computer learning tech with WD now? Seems like it would be an edge they could leverage without much chance for competition.
If I had a Mac I'd get this ASAP. While I don't use RTP considering it's a big ol resource hog at times, WD has all but replaced Malwarebytes for me as my go to cleaner. It just works, honestly
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y3-jmuEez18/Uw_ERIN0R1I/AAAAAAAAADM/9c-ivlrzGck/s1600/585px-MacOS-Logo.svg_.png I'm sensing a little nod to this in there
Malwarebytes is significantly better.. Windows Defender is certainly the best free anti-virus, though, I'll grant that.
MBAM isn't really a full time AV, it's the system un-fucker for when it gets bad. Or at least that's how I understand it.
The pro version is a full-time AV. Hence the distinction between best free and best paid-for AV.
Malwarebytes Pro gets my vote too for being the best full-time AV, but Windows Defender + Malwarebytes Free is also a good combination.
what are the chances that my mac has malware on it given that i haven't been entirely careful with it??
Luckily, because OSX is like, 6% market share, you're probably pretty okay. Most of what's on Mac these days is miners and password stealing malware so if you're not experiencing identity theft and weird charges to your accounts you're probably alright.
Yes, you'd have to be daft to say Macs were "immune", and market share did play the most significant role. But, the underlying architecture of Unix machines (properly separating user space, actual privilege escalation) were far ahead of Windows in terms of security. It's taken Microsoft decades to catch up, and they're still behind.
True but you may as well say RISC based computers don't get viruses because of inherently better architecture. it's true on some level yeah, bi
I mean, if you're referring to the wave of speculative execution exploits, CISC processors aren't inherently worse. ARM64 had to receive Spectre/Meltdown fixes.
Never heard of anyone getting malware on a mac (except from retards who should not be touching a computer). But then again I only get my software from repos. Haven't used antimalware for ages and probably not ever going to
RISC is inherently better though, because by having fewer possible instructions you can lock down the processor more effectively with fewer potential holes. That's what I mean yeah, win32, everything else that's legacy carry forward for compatibility. Comparing the two in terms of lower level security vulnerabilities is kind of hard because of the usage of the OS prevents a lot of that from completely disappearing. Windows is cheaper and better on the large scale because that walled garden, the only thing really protecting OSX properly, introduces massive costs to operations that support it is my point. Windows' vulnerabilities aren't entirely the fault of Microsoft or inherently flawed OS, they're the fault of industries using Windows when they should be using custom Linux distros with just the essential bits installed. Because if Microsoft were to just roll out Windows11 and say "alright everyone, here's Windows11 and it's literally fucking airtight. But it doesn't have backwards compatibility for 32-bit, legacy drivers, etc, etc." Literally no one would use it. Shit just look at all the head up arse people on this forum who froth at the mouth when they go on tirades about how they will never use w10 and are still using win7 because "it's better", despite W10 actually being a much faster and more secure OS. Now imagine that but on the level of industry where I can tell you for an objective fact I have at least 4 computers running mission critical programs in my server racks and they're running Win2000. Fucking windows 2000. I have probably 20-30 machines still using XP. The laptop that I use to re-program the electronic locks on the doors has to run XP. The program doesn't work on 7 and corporate doesn't think it's a good use of money for us to upgrade this system, and this is shit that has been EOL for fucking YEARS now.
Imagine saying this ten years ago.
Last I checked Windows Defender was one of the best AVs out there free or paid, with the only issue being a slightly higher false-positive rate. So I wouldn't go so far as to say "significantly".
Oh, trust me, I'm right there with you on the pain of mission critical legacy software. In the past we've had to virtualize and silo off from the network a number of Server 2003 instances, as well as a few XP machines, because the only other option was absurdly expensive for the customer. The real pain was getting it to interface with the host's unique hardware, and it's amazing that it doesn't collapse from breathing on it. Then there's all those ancient ERP systems that's a .NET wrapper over a VB wrapper over software programmed in COBOL or Fortran, running on miracles and glue. All because upper management would rather use inexpensive but continuous makeshift bandaids for fifty years than an expensive but more permanent solution. Often, running these things in Wine can get it running, and other times Windows' built-in compatibility mode works out (especially with 32-bit installs). But sometimes it's just impossible, so an immovable wall meets an unstoppable force. Like, I get it, I sympathize. But all that said, it's irrelevant to what I'm trying to say. That is, while market share does play the biggest role, those fundamental architectural differences do have an impact on viruses. Like Windows' still incomplete implementation of ASLR, privilege escalation issues that've only had band-aids applied because so many applications needlessly assume you're running as an admin, and the still lumbering and lengthy unfinished quest of properly moving things to user-space. I don't even use Mac OS. It'd be a decent option if I wanted a POSIX compliant machine without ever dealing with xorg.conf, but I'm just saying, it's not "going turbo-retard on a meme" to say it's inherently more secure.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.