[SOLVED] I don't need any antivirus?

[Ghuloomo]

So, I know that Linux has no virus infection, or atleast what I have heard. So everytime someone tells me why you prefer Ubuntu over windows, I tell them: In windows, you need to put firewall, spyware, Trojan horse detector, antivirus. In Linux you simple don't need those things, there is no virus infection in Linux systems.

So what I want to know is, is that true? and how come? Can someone explain?

[Xarok]

First of all Windows is used a lot more so there is more programs made for it,
and this includes malware

Linux is also better designed with security in mind

And lastely, virus makers are probably people who hate Windows and are Linux users themselves.

Also Most Linux user are tech savy as hell, and aren't dumb enough to do things that will let them get viruses etc.
(Why would you make malware for a usergroup who's not gonna get infected by it?)

So no,
you don't need virus protection
though you can install some anyways...

[Bungo Pony]

It's not impossible to have a virus on Linux, but it's more difficult for a virus to infect and spread. Windows viruses cannot run in Linux unless you put some effort into making them work in Wine / Dosbox.

Running a Windows virus in Linux is like putting gasoline into a diesel engine. It just wasn't made for that particular job.

[vishzilla]

This article (http://www.linux.com/feature/60208) will explain clearly

[northern lights]

In Windows, any default user can delete/move/modify any file the system has to offer. Windows will not immediately complain when you screw an essential file. It will do so upon the next reboot though, most likely with the aid of that infamous blue screen.

If you personally can modify everything, so can malicious software. In a UNIX based OS you need root privileges to modify anything system essential. So would a virus/malware, which makes it much tougher to code. It might be annoying at first, to have to enter your password several times in a session, but there's good reasons for that being required.

Further, since most of the world's comps run on Windows, the incentive to code malware for that system is obviously much larger also.

[sayakb]

@OP
Well, Windows, you can say is more widely used around the globe than Linux (not to mention the M$ monopoly).. anyway, Linux does get affected by viruses, but the chances of virus infection in comparison Windows is just 1/100 th. But for an extra protection, you may install any antivirus you like like ClamAV and Avast. That won't provide you any auto-protection (since you don't need it anyways). You may wish to scan your files if you are connected to any other Windows machine on your network.

My personal experience: When I find a flash disk that is infected by some so called dangerous virus, I simply plug it on my Linux box, let it open, and DELETE the virus manually (most commonly the autorun.inf file that is autogenerated, the virus scripts in a Recycled folder, etc.)

[Ghuloomo]

So you mean they make viruses with C++ or whatever programming language it is, that will only infect windows structured computers, coz they know they have a wider audience there, and 2nd, why the hell they alter their own people (Linux users).

But why making them in the first place? Didn't Linux came to make a better computing life and encouraging users for open source, and stuff? So why they are the bad guys?

And also, what is so hard in Linux structure, that can't be hacked or compromised by any intrusion?

[northern lights]

And also, what is so hard in Linux structure, that can't be hacked or compromised by any intrusion?
You've gotta have root priviliges to modify essential data...

But why making them in the first place? Didn't Linux came to make a better computing life and encouraging users for open source, and stuff?
Malware can be coded under any OS - it needs not neccessarily be done under Linux to screw with Windows machines/users.

So you mean they make viruses with C++ or whatever programming language it is, that will only infect windows structured computers, coz they know they have a wider audience there
The probramming language malware is written in does not affect it's target - the nature of the code for a virus that's able to screw with Linux would have to be entirely different. Most viruses are based on some exploit/flaw in the targeted OS (There you go, if you wanted to count Windows exploits, you'd be sitting for months, which is also what Microsoft does before releasing a fix).

So why they are the bad guys?
Man, grab a Philosophy book ;)
--> People lie, cheat, steal since the dawn of man. Why don't Palestinians and Israelis sort their **** out? As long as there's war in the world, I think the evil nature of humanity can not be pinned down to computer viruses...

[Tatty]

And lastely, virus makers are probably people who hate Windows and are Linux users t

This is very wrong. I assume you were joking when you wrote this...

But why making them in the first place?

It used to be the case a long time ago that viruses were made by people mainly for the fun of creating such a thing.

However nowadays a large number of viruses are made by people out to make money - they do this through various methods, usually by either advertising for companies (displaying pop-ups, or adding links to the favourites menu, etc.) or by attempting to steal data (such as passwords and personal details) to sell on to fraudsters.

[Ghuloomo]

My personal experience: When I find a flash disk that is infected by some so called dangerous virus, I simply plug it on my Linux box, let it open, and DELETE the virus manually (most commonly the autorun.inf file that is autogenerated, the virus scripts in a Recycled folder, etc.)

That's exactly what I'm used to do..

[bodhi.zazen]

It has been a while since I posted this, so ...

Anti-Virus scanning on Linux is of limited utility as there are no know Linux viruses "in the wild" so there is essentially nothing to scan for.

In addition Antivirus is reactive, not proactive meaning it can not protect you from the next Linux virus until AFTER it is released, not before.

A potential use of linux antivirus is to "protect" windows or if you are running a mail server, and even then, IMO, Windows antivirus is better then Linux antivirus.

In the end, the choice is yours to make, but I would be willing to bet that the more experience one has with Linux (Ubuntu) the less one feels the need for scanning / for viruses.

If you would like to learn a little about Ubuntu security, see these links :

Ubuntu Security (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812)

Psychocats security (http://psychocats.net/ubuntu/security)

Ubuntu/Linux/Windows and Viruses/Malware (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=323028)

Also, +1 Tatty *nix targets are just as valuable, if not more, then Windows targets.

Security is as important on Ubuntu as with any OS, but it is different.

[Ghuloomo]

Man, grab a Philosophy book ;)
--> People lie, cheat, steal since the dawn of man. Why don't Palestinians and Israelis sort their **** out? As long as there's war in the world, I think the evil nature of humanity can not be pinned down to computer viruses...

So even linux users have bad guys, lolz :p

Thanks dear for all the explanations..

[aysiu]

Anti-Virus scanning on Linux is of limited utility as there are no know Linux viruses "in the wild" so there is essentially nothing to scan for.

In addition Antivirus is reactive, not proactive meaning it can not protect you from the next Linux virus until AFTER it is released, not before.

A potential use of linux antivirus is to "protect" windows or if you are running a mail server, and even then, IMO, Windows antivirus is better then Linux antivirus. Well put, bodhi.zazen.

My feeling is that people who feel secure running anti-virus on Linux are probably neglecting useful security measures like avoiding shady websites, not logging in as the root user, choosing hard-to-guess passwords, etc.

[Ghuloomo]

So let me get it straight, there are no viruses in Linux systems because of the root privilege, also developing a virus for breaking the root, and giving viruses executing permission are so hard or impossible, but does that mean no one could break into root to alter a Linux system before? Is it impossible?

What if someone made a virus to copy itself without execution, only copying itself to the home folder or any other folder to make a unstoppable flood. I guess what I'm pointing to is why it's all on WINDOWS? if bad guys are bad guys, they wont be bad guys for some and good guys for some, EXCEPT if they are Linux users themselves!
So I guess Xarok is right, what you think Tatty?


Being able to execute a virus is really important, and maybe that's the best thing Linux is doing to prevent virus infections. We used to do a lot of simple viruses using C++ with the infinite while loop condition and putting a message and "/a" (motherboard beep) inside, and putting them in the startup folder of the whole lab in uni, but again, we were executing it, but we can't in Linux, that's the good thing I guess.

[Ghuloomo]

Well put, bodhi.zazen.

My feeling is that people who feel secure running anti-virus on Linux are probably neglecting useful security measures like avoiding shady websites, not logging in as the root user, choosing hard-to-guess passwords, etc.
That's totally right, even when I was using windows, I never got a virus in my life. Don't go to porn sites, know the basics of P2P and torrent, and make a quick scan on Flash usb devices :p ..

All what it takes ;)

[aysiu]

Being able to execute a virus is really important, and maybe that's the best thing Linux is doing to prevent virus infections. We used to do a lot of simple viruses using C++ with the infinite while loop condition and putting a message and "/a" (motherboard beep) inside, and putting them in the startup folder of the whole lab in uni, but again, we were executing it, but we can't in Linux, that's the good thing I guess. That may be what stops self-replicating viruses from spreading, but as desktop Linux becomes more popular, what we'll have to watch our for are social engineering attacks along the lines of "Unable to view this video? Download the plugin" along with a malicious .deb file.

[insanet]

if you dual boot windows you might want to get anti virus protection
and the reason why many virus makers are linux users is because to make a virus you must be knowledgeable at computers and if your knowledgeable at computers your going to have linux on your computer.

[northern lights]

And lastely, virus makers are probably people who hate Windows and are Linux users themselves

So I guess Xarok is right, what you think Tatty?

Nope. It's utterly wrong to believe the "Microsoft hatin' Linux community" to be the reason for malware's existence. Not fair. Not true.

[bodhi.zazen]

if you dual boot windows you might want to get anti virus protection
and the reason why many virus makers are linux users is because to make a virus you must be knowledgeable at computers and if your knowledgeable at computers your going to have linux on your computer.

There are lots of very knowledgeable people who use Windows, and other OS besides windows. Lets not insult others just because we disagree with their choices.

[Ghuloomo]

There are lots of very knowledgeable people who use Windows, and other OS besides windows. Lets not insult others just because we disagree with their choices.
Nice reply, though what he said was nothing but the truth

[northern lights]

Nice reply, though what he said was nothing but the truth

What are you saying? Either the reply was incorrect, or "what he said" was not exactly the truth. I'd tend to favor the latter option.

A buddy of mine is a 4th year CS student and much more of a wiz with computers than I myself. He'd take Windows XP to the grave though and refuses to accept that Gutsy deserves being called stable. I'd wholeheartedly disagree, yet this (in your or my eyes) wrong decision does not make him not knowledgeable now, does it? That goes for many more people than this one acquaintance of mine...

[Ghuloomo]

What are you saying? Either the reply was incorrect, or "what he said" was not exactly the truth. I'd tend to favor the latter option.

A buddy of mine is a 4th year CS student and much more of a wiz with computers than I myself. He'd take Windows XP to the grave though and refuses to accept that Gutsy deserves being called stable. I'd wholeheartedly disagree, yet this (in your or my eyes) wrong decision does not make him not knowledgeable now, does it? That goes for many more people than this one acquaintance of mine...
After a 2nd thought, I guess you're right too :P .. I myself was a windows user for so long, and I was a total professional of it. I can troubleshoot any problem. Then when I moved to Ubuntu, my previous knowledge of computer made me a quicker learner.

But in comparison, really windows users knowledges are nothing comparing to Linux users. This is acknowledged by every user of Linux who has converted from windows.

Thanks for your reply dear,