Linux is far from being free of malware - is that true?

[monkeybrain20122]

I don't open attachments from dubious sources. So you are correct that it hasn't crossed my mind. But then exercising some caution is probably more effective than running an AV in this instant, there are also built in ways to give warnings in most webmail services.

Wine is an interesting point. Are there actual cases where people get infected that way though? Not sure if any Windows viruses get gold rating in Wine (they should definitely keep a list. ) Without an AV I think you can still vastly lower the risk by making sure that Wine apps should never go online and config it to map only to /home subdirctories, and of course the same caution about not downloading .exe from random sites applies (I think most wine users only need it for a few specific apps and it is not like they download win software regularly from the web, so the use case is not the same as using Windows) And of course never run wine with sudo.

[jdeca57]

There is one huge difference between Ubuntu/Linux and Windows and that is that the first user in Windows 8.1 is root. And when you buy a PC the vendor will gladly rattle off the Gigabytes and the Megahertz but in the end a user leaves the store with a box and no further information. He must make an active effort to create a non-root user. That would be the second reason (next to huge numbers) why Windows gets more attention: chances are much better to have a result from an attack.

[monkeybrain20122]

Nothing in the guest session get saved if you reboot. So it seems make sense to do sensitive online transactions by logging into the guest session if you are really security conscious (it has the advantage over live usb as all compoenents are up to date)

[C.S.Cameron]

My wife has not been able to attract malware using Ubuntu, for over seven years, so I think it must be impossible.

[Bucky Ball]

My wife has not been able to attract malware using Ubuntu, for over seven years, so I think it must be impossible.

It's only been five here, but neither has mine.

[bashiergui]

My wife has not been able to attract malware using Ubuntu, for over seven years, so I think it must be impossible.

It's only been five here, but neither has mine

That can only mean you inspect and reverse your binaries often.

[ZoiaGuyver]

The question was "Linux is far from being free of Malware - is that true" Linux is about as free from malware as anything currently in the OS market. The problem is between the chair and the keyboard most the time.

Linux at present has had no widespread malware or virus infection ever.

You can read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware to see what types there are but it also states that few if any of those listed are in the wild and most are outdated by updates.

The problem isn't "Linux as a target" its "Linux as a delivery system to other targets", While Linux itself cannot be directly affected other systems can. The whole "You should run AV and Antimalware on Linux" argument is more about protecting others rather than protecting yourself. The question if there are threats to Linux/UNIX, ofcourse there are, Linux/UNIX is a prime target within the webspace due to its shear dominance of the market, much like Android in the mobile market or Windows in the Desktop market. Linux is the least affected as it does not give privilages automatically, has been built on the basis that security is paramount (for the most part kernel vulnerbilities are extremly hard to exploit because of outside factors MAC, Kernel hardening and the likes).

Sorry for going off on a tangent about this but I feel as a community we need to advise people on the facts not on theory. Linux is NOT Malware or Virus "free" but the likeliness of you actually getting something is so small it doesn't need to be focused or worried about.

[bashiergui]

The problem isn't "Linux as a target" its "Linux as a delivery system to other targets", While Linux itself cannot be directly affected other systems can. The whole "You should run AV and Antimalware on Linux" argument is more about protecting others rather than protecting yourself. The question if there are threats to Linux/UNIX, ofcourse there are, Linux/UNIX is a prime target within the webspace due to its shear dominance of the market, much like Android in the mobile market or Windows in the Desktop market. Linux is the least affected as it does not give privilages automatically, has been built on the basis that security is paramount (for the most part kernel vulnerbilities are extremly hard to exploit because of outside factors MAC, Kernel hardening and the likes).

Sorry for going off on a tangent about this but I feel as a community we need to advise people on the facts not on theory. Linux is NOT Malware or Virus "free" but the likeliness of you actually getting something is so small it doesn't need to be focused or worried about.

If you run any kind of service on Linux then you are patently wrong. If it's strictly used as a desktop with no services then your advice is still bad because you will encounter malicious emails & websites when using the Linux desktop.

[Hungry Man]

Is "Linux" free of malware? No. Of course not. Servers running Linux are hacked constantly.Is Ubuntu? Yeah, pretty much. There's basically no attacks on Desktop Linux. It's not that it's hard to do it (seriously, it's not so much harder than Windows), no one just cares to do it. There's not enough profit in it.

[buzzingrobot]

We ought not to be asserting that Linux is 'malware free'. That can create the impression that Linux *cannot* be infected by malware, which is certainly false.

If we over-hype this, then we will create false expectations and, worse, generate blowback when a widely publicized
Linux attack appears.