Malware infections growing on Macs

[Bryn]

See: https://www.ricksdailytips.com/macs-...m_medium=email

[Dave2002]

See: https://www.ricksdailytips.com/macs-...m_medium=email

Note, however, that the linked article refers to a company with an interest in this - and presumably with something to sell. Re the fishing and other kinds of email "attacks" - yes - they're a pain on almost all systems.

It is correct that there are some Mac malware attacks, but maybe they are still at a low level compared with other systems.

The advice about backups and Time Machine etc. is good up to a point. Time Machine is occasionally useful. It may make more sense to do a complete system backup say once a month - using a tool such as Carbon Copy Cloner, or Super Duper, though in reality many people don't bother. It could be good practice though but would increase the cost of hardware needed for backups somewhat. Time Machine backups need a drive really at least twice the size of the main computer drive, whereas cloned copy drives only need to be about the same size. Two cloned copy drives could be alternated from month to month. Otherwise use large drives with multiple partitions.

One does also have to assess the risks involved. Putting all backups on one drive, for example, increases the risk if that drive is dropped, or if it's an SSD, stolen or otherwise malfunctions.

[french frank]

Time Machine backups need a drive really at least twice the size of the main computer drive, whereas cloned copy drives only need to be about the same size.

Is that true? It automatically deletes the earliest back-ups once it's full. I only find it useful for restoring recent accidentally deleted files - and no way would I even remember which files were on the earliest back-up. You can also reboot from TM if the OS fails. I think the mistake is in regarding the Time Machine drive as a general storage disk. I back up at least every day on Time Machine and Super Duper!; in fact Time Machine is permanently connected and backs up every hour (latest back-up 18.01). SuperDuper! back-up is at least once a day.

I don't have anti-virus software but I do scan regularly with Bitdefender. But then if I lost everything I'd just shrug and get a new hobby

[Bryn]

Note, however, that the linked article refers to a company with an interest in this - and presumably with something to sell. Re the fishing and other kinds of email "attacks" - yes - they're a pain on almost all systems.

It is correct that there are some Mac malware attacks, but maybe they are still at a low level compared with other systems.

The advice about backups and Time Machine etc. is good up to a point. Time Machine is occasionally useful. It may make more sense to do a complete system backup say once a month - using a tool such as Carbon Copy Cloner, or Super Duper, though in reality many people don't bother. It could be good practice though but would increase the cost of hardware needed for backups somewhat. Time Machine backups need a drive really at least twice the size of the main computer drive, whereas cloned copy drives only need to be about the same size. Two cloned copy drives could be alternated from month to month. Otherwise use large drives with multiple partitions.

One does also have to assess the risks involved. Putting all backups on one drive, for example, increases the risk if that drive is dropped, or if it's an SSD, stolen or otherwise malfunctions.

This article caught my eye due to my having recommended a, now sadly late, friend to install the free version of the software concerned (Malwarebytes for Mac) on her computer, following a series of phishing attacks she had experienced. She rejected the suggestion precisely due to the mistaken popular opinion that Macs are immune from malware and concern about the name of the software concerned. Yes, one can pay for the real-time detection version of Malwarebytes. I don't. I use the free version and just remember to scan with it often and browse with care. Better safe than sorry, I say.

[Dave2002]

This article caught my eye due to my having recommended a, now sadly late, friend to install the free version of the software concerned (Malwarebytes for Mac) on her computer, following a series of phishing attacks she had experienced. She rejected the suggestion precisely due to the mistaken popular opinion that Macs are immune from malware and concern about the name of the software concerned. Yes, one can pay for the real-time detection version of Malwarebytes. I don't. I use the free version and just remember to scan with it often and browse with care. Better safe than sorry, I say.

I doubt that installing Malwarebytes led to your friends demise.

I have recently installed CleanMyMac X - very cautiously - as I tend to be suspicious about many tools which claim to improve systems or remove malware. However it does appear to be good, and does claim to provide protection against some malware. For a mere customer to test any of these pieces of software, and check them for potential threats, is very hard, but I can report that it appears to be benign and does somethings which are useful.

[Bryn]

I doubt that installing Malwarebytes led to your friends demise.

Far from it, COVID-19 did that job.

I have recently installed CleanMyMac X - very cautiously - as I tend to be suspicious about many tools which claim to improve systems or remove malware. However it does appear to be good, and does claim to provide protection against some malware. For a mere customer to test any of these pieces of software, and check them for potential threats, is very hard, but I can report that it appears to be benign and does somethings which are useful.

I reckon your suspicions reflect the same wariness, born of the myth of Mac immunity from infection, that discouraged my late friend from using the free Malwarebytes for Mac to scan her computer. By the way, the free Malwarebytes not only scans, it quarantines or removes infections, once prompted. It's just that, unlike the paid-for version, it does not prevent the infection in the first place.

[Dave2002]

I reckon your suspicions reflect the same wariness, born of the myth of Mac immunity from infection, that discouraged my late friend from using the free Malwarebytes for Mac to scan her computer. By the way, the free Malwarebytes not only scans, it quarantines or removes infections, once prompted. It's just that, unlike the paid-for version, it does not prevent the infection in the first place.

No - I do understand that Macs may get infected, and have done for a long while. It's a balance of risk, and it's very possible that some virus checkers and cleaning tools may themselves be or contain malware.

I have had malwarebytes running on many machines, though mostly PC variants. Another tool I used to use a lot was CCleaner. One tool I used and liked on PCs - was one which could seemingly tell which websites external agents were calling up one's own computer. That was free and was very revealing - some very interesting connections were shown up. I'm unaware of a similar one for Macs, though there probably is one. Some of the drive by connections were very likely from malefactors, while others may have been government agencies - though they may also be bad actors. Sometimes killing the connections made a big difference to how fast one's machine ran, though another thing to spot was how rapidly those connections reestablished.

[Beresford]

One tool I used and liked on PCs - was one which could seemingly tell which websites external agents were calling up one's own computer. That was free and was very revealing - some very interesting connections were shown up.

What tool was that? Your use of the past tense seems to indicate that it is no longer available.

[Bryn]

No - I do understand that Macs may get infected, and have done for a long while. It's a balance of risk, and it's very possible that some virus checkers and cleaning tools may themselves be or contain malware.

I have had malwarebytes running on many machines, though mostly PC variants. Another tool I used to use a lot was CCleaner. One tool I used and liked on PCs - was one which could seemingly tell which websites external agents were calling up one's own computer. That was free and was very revealing - some very interesting connections were shown up. I'm unaware of a similar one for Macs, though there probably is one. Some of the drive by connections were very likely from malefactors, while others may have been government agencies - though they may also be bad actors. Sometimes killing the connections made a big difference to how fast one's machine ran, though another thing to spot was how rapidly those connections reestablished.

One fairly strong criticism I have of Malwarebytes for Windows is that they have not created a version fully compatible with the Snapdragon (TM) 8cx processor which is the CPU in the Lenovo Yoga 5G laptop I am currently using. CCleaner is a similar case, though there are somewhat fragile work-rounds for it which I was taken through by their online support. However, I subscribe to Lenovo Vantage, which does some of the same things, plus malware scanning and removal, though Windows Security does a fair job, as long as its malware definitions are kept up to date. There again, there are many software companies that have not created 64-bit versions of their products that run on ARM-based computers, thus forcing one to resort to 32-bit versions, which do work. Though the 5G connectivity is handy when out of range of WiFi, I sometimes wish I had simply chosen to stick to Intel or AMD and relied on using my mobile phone as a hotspot source.

[Dave2002]

there are many software companies that have not created 64-bit versions of their products that run on ARC-based computers, thus forcing one to resort to 32-bit versions, which do work. Though the 5G connectivity is handy when out of range of WiFi, I sometimes wish I had simply chosen to stick to Intel or AMD and relied on using my mobile phone as a hotspot source.

I guess you meant ARM chips.

64 bit vs 32 bit can be a pain. I have a whole bunch of plugins for music software which are 32 bit only. Some were reworked as 64 bit, some may have been updated in some way, so that a very similar one is still available, and some seem to have fallen by the wayside, which has been a pity in some cases. Now I have to trawl through loads of stuff in order to find the ones I liked, and whether there is an up-to-date equivalent. Also in some case there may be, but then I may have to pay for a new version - slight irritation. Re Intel - at least my iMac has Intel, but now Apple has thrown its own chips into the ring. Arguably they are better - or at least with appropriately written/converted software - but guess what - not every bit of software gets the makeover. I would like one of the new Mac machines, as all the indications are that they are a few times faster, but it does depend on the software.