For decades, Apple computers have maintained a reputation as inherently secure devices that resist malware and virus infections. However, the cybersecurity landscape has fundamentally transformed, and this perception no longer reflects contemporary reality. Today, Mac computers face an increasingly sophisticated and diverse threat environment that demands serious attention from users and organizations alike. While Apple’s built-in security infrastructure has improved substantially over the years, providing multiple layers of protection through tools like XProtect, Gatekeeper, and Notarization, these native defenses alone prove insufficient against the evolving tactics of cybercriminals who now actively target macOS with the same intensity they direct toward Windows systems. The answer to whether Macs need antivirus software is no longer a straightforward yes or no—rather, it represents a nuanced question requiring careful consideration of individual risk profiles, usage patterns, organizational requirements, and the specific threat landscape facing macOS users in 2025.
The Evolution of the “Mac Immunity” Myth: From Marketing Legend to Security Reality
The widespread belief that Macs are immune to viruses represents one of the most persistent and dangerous misconceptions in computing security. This myth originated during the early 2000s when Apple devices represented a tiny fraction of the personal computing market compared to Windows systems. The mathematical reality of cybercriminal economics drove this disparity—with over ninety percent of computing devices running Windows, attackers logically concentrated their efforts on the operating system that would yield the largest return on investment. Apple’s legendary “I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC” advertising campaign of 2006 further reinforced this perception, embedding the idea of Mac invulnerability deeply into consumer consciousness. Additionally, Apple’s walled garden approach and the carefully curated App Store created perceptions of enhanced security that, while containing some validity, masked real vulnerabilities in the macOS ecosystem.
The fundamental shift in this threat landscape accelerated dramatically beginning around 2019. In that year, Malwarebytes data revealed that serious malware attacks on Macs increased by sixty-one percent between 2019 and 2020, a statistic that shattered the comforting narrative of Mac immunity. More recently, security researchers have documented even more alarming trends, with a shocking seventy-three percent increase in Mac malware incidents reported in 2025 compared to the previous year. A 2021 study revealed a staggering one-thousand percent increase in Mac-targeted malicious programs, demonstrating the dramatic acceleration of interest among cybercriminals in targeting Apple’s operating system. These statistics represent far more than abstract numbers—they reflect a fundamental realization among threat actors that macOS devices have become sufficiently prevalent and valuable to justify dedicated attack development.
Several factors converge to explain this transformation. First, Apple’s market share has grown substantially, particularly in enterprise environments where sensitive data and financial resources make target devices more valuable to attackers. Second, the assumption of Mac immunity has created a dangerous complacency among users who may exercise less caution with security practices than their Windows-using counterparts. Third, the increasing interconnectedness of digital life means that compromised Macs can serve as entry points to broader corporate networks or connected personal devices, multiplying their value as attack targets. As Jason Vanzin, CISSP and CEO of Right Hand Technology Group, succinctly notes, “The Mac malware landscape has evolved dramatically. Cybercriminals are now targeting macOS with the same intensity as Windows, exploiting vulnerabilities and user trust.”
Understanding macOS Built-in Security Architecture: A Multi-Layered Defensive Framework
Apple has invested substantial resources in building a sophisticated multi-layered security architecture into macOS, creating what the company describes as a three-tier defensive system designed to protect users against malware and malicious software. Understanding these built-in protections is essential for anyone seeking to make informed decisions about additional security measures. The first layer focuses on preventing malware launch and execution before it can cause damage. This layer comprises the Mac App Store, where all applications are vetted by Apple before distribution, combined with Gatekeeper and Notarization for applications distributed outside the App Store.
Gatekeeper represents one of Apple’s most visible security mechanisms, automatically preventing software from developers that Apple has not approved from launching without explicit user authorization. Beginning with macOS Catalina, Gatekeeper evolved to check for malware every time an application runs, not just at first launch. In macOS Sequoia, Apple further strengthened Gatekeeper by eliminating the ability for users to bypass security warnings through Control-click overrides, forcing users instead to navigate to System Settings and explicitly authorize suspicious applications through a more deliberate process. This represents a deliberate security hardening measure designed to prevent accidental or careless authorization of malicious software.
Notarization complements Gatekeeper by creating a scanning service through which developers can submit applications for analysis before distribution. Apple scans submitted software for known malware signatures and, if none are detected, issues a Notarization ticket that developers can attach to their applications. Critically, Apple maintains the ability to revoke Notarization for previously approved applications if they later discover malicious behavior, enabling the company to block applications even after they have been distributed to users. This revocation process operates much more quickly than traditional antivirus signature updates because macOS regularly checks for new revocation tickets in the background.
The second defensive layer focuses on blocking malware from running on customer systems, combining Gatekeeper, Notarization, and XProtect to identify and neutralize threats that have somehow penetrated the first layer of defense. XProtect represents macOS’s built-in antivirus technology, using signature-based detection methods with YARA rules to identify known malware patterns. Apple updates XProtect signatures independently from system updates, sometimes providing multiple updates daily with new threat intelligence, enabling rapid response to emerging malware families. When XProtect detects known malware, it automatically blocks execution, moves the suspicious file to Trash, and alerts the user in Finder.
The third and final defensive layer focuses on remediating malware that has managed to execute despite the previous two layers of protection. XProtect includes advanced engines that can detect unknown malware based on behavioral analysis, examining suspicious activities that suggest malicious intent even when traditional signatures do not match. The system also includes remediation capabilities that can remove certain known threats automatically upon receiving updated threat definitions from Apple.
Beyond these three primary layers, macOS includes numerous additional security mechanisms that collectively strengthen the overall security posture of the operating system. System Integrity Protection (SIP) restricts critical system files to read-only status, preventing even administrative accounts from modifying core operating system components. Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) makes it more difficult for attackers to predict memory addresses, disrupting exploit development. Executive Disable (XD) prevents code execution from data segments of memory. FileVault encryption protects data at rest, ensuring that even if a device is physically stolen, the encrypted data remains inaccessible without the decryption key. The Secure Enclave, particularly on Apple silicon Macs, provides isolated hardware for cryptographic operations and biometric authentication, creating a protected space that even compromised operating system code cannot access.
These built-in protections do provide meaningful security benefits, and Apple continuously invests in improving them. However, understanding both their strengths and critical limitations is essential for making informed security decisions.
The Contemporary Threat Landscape: An Increasingly Sophisticated and Diverse Attack Environment
The macOS threat landscape of 2025 presents a qualitatively different threat environment than existed even five years ago. The diversity, sophistication, and targeting specificity of modern macOS malware reflects serious investment by cybercriminal organizations in attacking Apple’s operating system. Understanding these contemporary threats requires examining both the types of malware currently targeting macOS and the distribution techniques attackers employ to compromise user systems.
Ransomware has emerged as the most prevalent and damaging form of Mac malware in 2025, fundamentally changing the threat profile for macOS users. These attacks encrypt user data and hold it hostage until victims pay ransom, typically in cryptocurrency, creating severe disruption to both individual users and organizations. The sophistication of ransomware campaigns has increased substantially, with attackers leveraging social engineering techniques to trick users into downloading malicious files. Phishing emails remain the most common initial attack vector, with cybercriminals crafting convincing messages that appear to originate from legitimate organizations, containing attachments or links that, when clicked, unleash ransomware payloads.
Trojan horses represent another persistent threat category in the macOS ecosystem, with these deceptive programs masquerading as legitimate software to trick users into granting them access to sensitive information. Once installed, trojans can steal passwords, financial data, and other confidential information. In 2025, trojans are frequently distributed through seemingly legitimate popular applications, with cybercriminals creating convincing counterfeit versions complete with similar icons and descriptions that trick even cautious users into downloading malicious software.
Backdoors create hidden entry points into systems, allowing attackers to gain remote access and control over compromised devices. These threats prove particularly concerning because they often go undetected for extended periods, giving cybercriminals ample opportunity to exfiltrate sensitive data or launch further attacks. Backdoors employ sophisticated evasion techniques including hiding in system processes, using encrypted communication channels, and employing polymorphic code that changes its signature to avoid antivirus detection.
The emergence of information stealers and Remote Access Trojans (RATs) represents one of the most significant developments in the 2025 macOS threat landscape. Atomic macOS Stealer (AMOS), also known as Atomic Stealer, became one of the most notorious examples of this malware category during 2024 and into 2025. AMOS is designed to harvest a comprehensive range of sensitive data from infected systems, including saved passwords, cryptocurrency wallet information, browser history and cookies, system profile information, Keychain data, Apple Notes, files from standard user directories, and Telegram data. The malware disguises itself as cracked versions of popular applications, leveraging users’ desire for free software to gain initial infection. Alternative delivery methods include tricking users into pasting commands into the macOS Terminal, a technique that bypasses Gatekeeper protections.
Other sophisticated stealers have proliferated throughout 2024 and into 2025, including Cthulhu Stealer, Poseidon Stealer, Banshee Stealer, and Cuckoo Stealer, each with its own unique capabilities and distribution strategies. Remote Access Trojans like HZ RAT, traditionally known as Windows malware, have evolved to include macOS variants, allowing attackers to achieve complete remote control of compromised systems. These developments indicate a sophisticated shift in the cybercrime landscape, with threat actors investing significant resources in developing Mac-specific malware.
The distribution techniques attackers employ have become increasingly sophisticated and diversified. Malvertising, which abuses legitimate advertising networks like Google Ads, delivers malware to users searching for legitimate software. Users searching for popular applications like TradingView or Arc Browser find malicious search results that appear authentic, leading them to counterfeit download pages where they receive malware instead of the requested software. The ClearFake campaign represents another sophisticated distribution method, tricking users into believing they are downloading legitimate browser updates while actually receiving malware.
Protect Your Digital Life with Activate Security
Get 14 powerful security tools in one comprehensive suite. VPN, antivirus, password manager, dark web monitoring, and more.
Get Protected NowRed Canary security researchers documented a remarkable four-hundred percent increase in macOS threats from 2023 to 2024, with the dramatic increase driven largely by stealer malware. The researchers found that stealer threats were most active during the first nine months of 2024, comprising ninety-five percent of stealer detections, before tapering off significantly following Apple’s release of macOS Sequoia in September 2024. This reduction resulted from Apple’s removal of the Gatekeeper bypass that previously allowed users to launch unsigned software through Control-click operations. However, attackers quickly adapted, developing new distribution methods including distributing shell scripts within disk images and instructing users to drag them onto Terminal icons to execute.
Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actors, representing state-sponsored or well-funded cybercriminal groups, have increasingly targeted macOS users with sophisticated malware designed for espionage and data theft. Examples include SpectralBlur, a backdoor linked to North Korean threat actors, and LightSpy, a macOS variant of an iOS implant used for targeted surveillance. These developments indicate that macOS is no longer a peripheral target for well-resourced attackers but rather an integrated component of comprehensive offensive cyber operations.
Limitations and Gaps in Built-in Protection: Where Native Defenses Fall Short
Despite Apple’s sophisticated multi-layered defense strategy, significant gaps and limitations in built-in protection create meaningful security risks that third-party antivirus solutions can potentially address. Understanding these limitations is crucial for users seeking to make informed decisions about whether additional security measures are necessary.
XProtect, while valuable for detecting known malware signatures, operates with inherent limitations that restrict its effectiveness against novel threats. The system uses signature-based detection, meaning it can only identify malware that matches patterns Apple has previously documented. While Apple updates XProtect signatures regularly, a lag necessarily exists between the emergence of new malware variants and their inclusion in Apple’s detection databases. This inherent delay creates a window of opportunity during which newly released malware can compromise systems before XProtect signatures have been updated. Additionally, XProtect does not identify as many types of potential malware as dedicated third-party antivirus software, with gaps in its library of malicious codes potentially leaving users exposed to threats that third-party solutions might detect.
The closed-system nature of macOS presents a paradoxical security situation. While Apple’s control over the ecosystem creates some security benefits, it also severely restricts third-party security vendors from implementing comprehensive protective measures. Apple limits memory access for third-party security tools, preventing them from detecting sophisticated malware that operates in memory without touching the filesystem. While macOS 15 attempted to address this limitation by shutting down reflective code loading without filesystem access, this does not guarantee complete protection and forces third-party security developers to rely on Apple to fix vulnerabilities rather than implementing protective measures themselves.
The reliance on Notarization and Gatekeeper as primary protective mechanisms creates additional security theater concerns. Notarization operates by scanning applications for known malware at the time of submission, but sophisticated attackers can circumvent this protection by submitting seemingly innocent applications to Notarization and then pushing malicious updates after approval. Once an application bypasses Notarization, subsequent updates delivered through the application’s own update mechanism are not re-notarized, allowing malware to be delivered without triggering additional security checks. This represents a fundamental vulnerability in the Notarization model that Gatekeeper cannot address once an application has been initially approved.
Social engineering attacks remain largely outside the scope of Apple’s built-in protections. Users who willingly bypass Gatekeeper warnings or deliberately download and install applications from untrusted sources cannot be protected by technical mechanisms that assume users will follow security recommendations. Phishing attacks that trick users into compromising their own security represent one of the leading attack vectors, and no built-in protection mechanism can prevent users from making poor security decisions.
The GoFetch vulnerability discovered in Apple’s M-series chips represents a particularly concerning class of threat that no current protective measure can fully address. This side-channel vulnerability exploits the data memory-dependent prefetcher in M1, M2, and M3 chips to extract cryptographic keys from cryptographic operations, potentially allowing attackers to decrypt supposedly secure data. The vulnerability stems from fundamental chip architecture decisions and cannot be fixed through software patches, requiring instead protective code in third-party encryption software that may cause significant performance degradation. While no active exploits of GoFetch in the wild have been documented at the time of the most recent reports, the mere existence of this unpatched vulnerability represents a meaningful security risk that deserves consideration.
Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) bypass vulnerabilities like Sploitlight (CVE-2025-31199) demonstrate that even Apple’s access control mechanisms contain exploitable flaws. The Sploitlight vulnerability allowed attackers to steal sensitive user data cached by Apple Intelligence without explicit user consent by exploiting Spotlight plugins. While Apple has patched this specific vulnerability, the history of TCC bypasses suggests additional bypass techniques may exist or may be discovered in the future.
The Role of Third-Party Antivirus Solutions: Capabilities and Limitations
Third-party antivirus solutions designed for macOS offer capabilities that extend beyond Apple’s built-in protections, though these solutions operate within the constraints imposed by Apple’s closed system architecture. Understanding what third-party antivirus solutions can reasonably offer helps contextualize their role in a comprehensive security strategy.
Modern third-party antivirus solutions employ multiple detection methods beyond simple signature-based matching. Behavioral analysis examines system activity for patterns consistent with malware, potentially detecting previously unknown threats that signature-based systems would miss. Heuristic analysis attempts to predict whether unknown files are likely malicious based on their characteristics and observable behaviors. Real-time protection continuously monitors system activity, scanning files as they are accessed and providing immediate threat response. Scheduled scanning allows users to conduct thorough system examinations at times when system performance impact is less critical, such as overnight. Web protection features filter browser traffic to protect users from phishing attempts and malicious websites.
However, third-party antivirus solutions face significant constraints in the macOS environment that limit their effectiveness compared to equivalent Windows solutions. The restricted memory access available to third-party tools means they cannot detect malware that operates purely in memory without touching the filesystem. The sandboxed nature of many macOS applications limits the visibility that third-party security tools can achieve into system operations. The lack of kernel-level access available to third-party vendors in modern macOS versions compared to historical access levels restricts the depth of system monitoring that these solutions can perform.
Additionally, the installation of third-party antivirus software necessarily impacts system performance, though modern solutions have been designed to minimize this impact through optimized scanning processes and cloud-based analysis that offloads computational work from the user’s machine. AV-Comparatives testing found no meaningful impact on system performance with modern antivirus solutions, contradicting earlier concerns about antivirus software slowing down Macs. However, poorly designed or overly aggressive security solutions can cause noticeable performance degradation, system instability, and excessive battery drain. Users must carefully select antivirus solutions from reputable vendors that balance security effectiveness with system performance, avoiding both cheap solutions with poor detection rates and overly aggressive solutions that compromise usability.
Performance Considerations and the System Impact Debate
The question of whether antivirus software meaningfully impacts Mac system performance represents a critical consideration for many users, particularly those seeking to maintain the responsive experience that has historically characterized Mac computing. Historical concerns about antivirus software causing severe performance degradation originated when antivirus solutions were less optimized for Mac architecture and when system resources were more constrained. Contemporary perspective on this issue has evolved significantly based on real-world testing.
Modern antivirus solutions designed specifically for macOS employ sophisticated optimization techniques to minimize system impact. Cloud-based malware analysis removes the computationally intensive work of threat detection from the user’s machine, sending suspicious files to remote servers for analysis rather than conducting all analysis locally. Optimized real-time scanning focuses resources on newly created or modified files rather than continuously scanning all files on the system. Scheduled scanning allows users to conduct full system scans at times when the system is not in active use, such as overnight, avoiding performance degradation during periods when the user is actively working. Selective folder monitoring concentrates protection resources on directories most likely to contain threats rather than attempting to monitor the entire system in real-time.
Independent testing by AV-Comparatives, a respected laboratory conducting objective antivirus testing, found no meaningful impact on system performance with modern Mac antivirus solutions. This represents a significant change from earlier periods when antivirus software frequently caused noticeable performance degradation. However, individual experiences may vary based on system specifications, the particular antivirus solution selected, the configuration of its protection settings, and competing demands on system resources.
Conversely, avoiding antivirus software does not necessarily result in optimal system performance if malware becomes installed on the system. A compromised Mac running resource-intensive malware, cryptocurrency miners, or adware may suffer far worse performance degradation than any protective antivirus software would cause. This calculus suggests that for many users, the modest performance impact of well-designed antivirus software represents an acceptable tradeoff for protection against potentially severe performance degradation caused by malware infection.
A critical counter-argument to antivirus installation comes from long-time Mac community members who argue that poorly chosen antivirus solutions can cause far more damage than any malware they prevent. Some users report that installation of certain antivirus solutions led to system slowdowns, crashes, and instability requiring complete system reinstallation to resolve. This experience underscores the importance of selecting antivirus solutions from reputable vendors with strong track records rather than installing the first or cheapest option found.
A Risk-Based Framework for Decision Making: Contextualizing Need
The question of whether a Mac needs antivirus software fundamentally cannot be answered with a universal yes or no. Instead, the answer depends critically on individual circumstances, usage patterns, the sensitivity of data accessed, organizational requirements, and the specific threat environment facing particular users or organizations. A risk-based framework provides a useful structure for making this determination.
Users operating in low-risk profiles—those who browse exclusively reputable websites, carefully avoid suspicious downloads, maintain current software updates, and use strong authentication credentials—may achieve adequate protection from macOS’s built-in security features alone. These users generally encounter fewer infection attempts and have implemented behavioral practices that significantly reduce infection probability. For these individuals, the minimal additional risk may not justify the performance impact or complexity of managing additional security software.
Conversely, users operating in high-risk profiles—those who frequently download files from less familiar sources, visit potentially dangerous websites, use online banking and financial services, handle sensitive personal information, or manage organizational data—face substantially higher infection probability and significantly larger potential consequences from successful compromise. These users derive meaningful additional protection from third-party antivirus solutions that monitor behavior, detect previously unknown threats, and provide defense-in-depth beyond Apple’s built-in protections.
Enterprise and organizational contexts typically require antivirus software for Macs regardless of the security capabilities of individual devices. Organizations handling sensitive data, operating in regulated industries, managing healthcare or financial information, or supporting government contracts generally face legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations to implement comprehensive endpoint protection including antivirus software. The potential liability, financial penalties, and reputational damage from a successful breach often justifies the costs and complexity of deploying and maintaining antivirus solutions across Mac fleets.
Educational institutions, financial services organizations, healthcare providers, and government agencies overwhelmingly require antivirus protection for Mac devices as part of their security governance frameworks. These organizations recognize that while Macs have good inherent security, relying solely on built-in protections in environments where sensitive data and critical operations are at stake represents unacceptable risk exposure.
Personal usage patterns also influence the calculus. Creative professionals using cloud-based collaboration tools, remote workers accessing sensitive corporate data, developers downloading code and tools from internet sources, and users managing financial accounts all operate in higher-risk profiles that benefit from additional antivirus protection. Casual users primarily using web browsing, email, and streaming services operate in lower-risk profiles where built-in protections may suffice.
The sensitivity of data handled and stored on the device represents another critical consideration. Devices containing financial records, health information, government documents, intellectual property, or personal information warrant stronger protections than devices used primarily for entertainment and casual web browsing. The consequence of compromise—potential financial loss, privacy violation, identity theft, or damage to valuable work—must be weighed against the cost and complexity of additional security measures.
Recommendations for Different User Categories
The foregoing analysis suggests differentiated recommendations for various user categories, reflecting the reality that one-size-fits-all security advice proves inadequate in the face of varying circumstances, threat profiles, and consequences of compromise.
For individual home users with casual internet usage, primarily web browsing, email, and entertainment-focused computer use, Apple’s built-in security features combined with good cybersecurity hygiene practices may provide adequate protection. These users should ensure that automatic security updates are enabled, use strong passwords for important accounts, enable two-factor authentication where available, avoid downloading and installing software from untrusted sources, and exercise appropriate caution with email attachments and links. These behavioral practices significantly reduce the likelihood of successful malware infection. However, even these users should consider periodic malware scans using free tools like Malwarebytes if their usage patterns change or if they begin handling more sensitive information.
For individual users engaging in moderately risky activities—downloading files from internet sources, using online banking and financial services, managing sensitive personal information, or engaging in creative work involving valuable intellectual property—professional antivirus software provides meaningful additional protection that justifies the modest performance impact and management complexity. These users should select solutions from established security vendors with strong detection records and should monitor system performance impact to ensure that the antivirus solution does not degrade usability. Free antivirus options like Malwarebytes or Avast provide basic protection at no cost, while paid solutions from vendors like Norton, Bitdefender, or TotalAV offer more comprehensive features including VPN services, password managers, and broader protection across multiple devices.
For professional users handling sensitive data, including healthcare providers, financial services professionals, lawyers, and consultants managing confidential information, third-party antivirus software provides essential additional protection as part of a comprehensive security strategy. These users should supplement antivirus software with encrypted communications, strong authentication, secure data storage practices, and regular data backups. They should also remain vigilant against phishing attempts and social engineering tactics that can compromise security regardless of technical protections.
For macOS users in regulated industries including finance, healthcare, and government, as well as users working for organizations with security governance frameworks, third-party antivirus software represents a non-negotiable requirement rather than an optional enhancement. These users must comply with organizational policies and industry regulations that specify endpoint protection requirements. Enterprise-grade solutions like Jamf Protect, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, or similar endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions provide comprehensive visibility, threat detection, and remediation capabilities designed for enterprise environments.
For organizations managing fleets of Mac devices, deploying comprehensive endpoint protection including antivirus software represents both a security imperative and a best practice aligned with industry standards. Organizations should implement centralized management solutions enabling administrators to deploy, configure, monitor, and update antivirus software across all devices from a single management console. This approach ensures consistent protection, enables rapid response to emerging threats, and provides visibility into security posture across the organizational fleet.
Making the Smart Choice for Mac Security
The question of whether a Mac computer needs antivirus software in 2025 cannot be answered with a simple affirmation or denial. Rather, the answer depends on balancing multiple factors including the user’s threat profile, the sensitivity of data handled and stored on the device, organizational and regulatory requirements, the user’s personal risk tolerance, and the consequences of potential compromise.
Apple has invested substantial resources in building sophisticated multi-layered security into macOS through XProtect, Gatekeeper, Notarization, System Integrity Protection, FileVault encryption, and numerous other protective mechanisms. These built-in defenses have improved substantially over the years and provide meaningful protection against many common malware threats. However, these built-in protections contain meaningful limitations and gaps that cannot be overlooked. The signature-based detection approaches employed by XProtect create inherent delays against novel threats, restricted access to system resources prevents third-party security tools from detecting certain sophisticated malware, and social engineering attacks remain largely outside the scope of technical protective measures.
The contemporary threat landscape targeting macOS has transformed fundamentally since the era when Mac immunity myths took root. Cybercriminals now actively develop sophisticated, Mac-specific malware including ransomware, trojans, information stealers, backdoors, and remote access trojans. Attacks increasingly exploit social engineering techniques and distribution methods designed specifically for macOS rather than treating it as an afterthought to Windows malware development. The four-hundred percent increase in macOS threats documented during 2024 and the seventy-three percent increase in 2025 demonstrate the acceleration of this threat landscape. A shocking 1,000 percent increase in Mac-targeted malicious programs reported in 2021 established that this transformation represents a fundamental, not temporary, shift in the threat environment.
For users operating in low-risk profiles with strong behavioral security practices and handling non-sensitive information, Apple’s built-in protections combined with good cybersecurity hygiene may provide adequate security. However, as soon as users begin handling more sensitive data, using online banking and financial services, downloading software from internet sources, or managing valuable intellectual property, third-party antivirus software provides meaningful additional protection that justifies its costs and complexity. For organizations handling any sensitive data or operating in regulated industries, third-party antivirus software represents a security imperative rather than an optional enhancement.
The key insight is that security is not a product but a process. No single technical control, whether built-in macOS protections or third-party antivirus software, provides complete immunity from cyber threats. Rather, security emerges from layering multiple protective measures including regular software updates, strong authentication practices, careful user behavior, encrypted communications, secure data storage, and comprehensive endpoint protection. Users seeking to protect their devices and data should implement this defense-in-depth approach, selecting the specific components appropriate to their individual circumstances and threat profile.
In 2025, the obsolete question of whether Macs need antivirus should be replaced with the more nuanced and contextual question: given my specific usage patterns, the sensitivity of information I handle, and the regulatory or organizational requirements I must meet, what combination of technical protective measures and behavioral practices best balances security and usability? For the vast majority of users, this analysis will result in a determination that third-party antivirus software, deployed thoughtfully and configured to minimize performance impact, represents a worthwhile investment in comprehensive security.
