A large number of opinions about security
Prelude: This thread was split off of another discussion by a moderator, and without any sort of explanation. I'm responding to a query about anti-malware software for Linux. So this didn't just pop up out of the blue like it seems to.
ALL anti-malware software for Linux I've used has false positives. You need to investigate them and mark them as such.
I've heard of LMD but never used it.
Before anyone gives you a false sense of security, if Linux or Ubuntu were "secure enough" with a basic installation and no extra anti-malware or security software on it, I'm betting the forum would never have been hacked. I've been preaching active anti-malware security for years, and yes I'm capitalizing on Ubuntu Forum's unfortunate incident to illustrate my point.
I'm NOT an expert at this, but I do it to the best of my ability.
I've been owned a few times, including when I thought I was bullet proof. Had I not been running software to detect malware AND watched the logs obsessively, AND periodically looked things over myself, I would never have known I had been owned. Most of the serious malware is designed to be available to the black hat hacker for a long time without ever being detected. Trashing your box dramatically does nothing for them. Having your computer as a tool does much for them.
Start here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BasicSecurity
I get seriously bent when people claim that Linux is not susceptible. Yes, linux as Ubuntu sets it up is probably better than most desktops you get, but that in no way means you need not worry about it.
How much effort you put into this is up to you. You can't possibly KNOW you haven't been owned. You CAN, however, KNOW that you HAVE been. The problem is the vast number of possibilities in the middle where you have been owned and don't know about it.
Last edited by 1clue; August 29th, 2013 at 03:04 PM.