why linux doesnt need an antivirus?

[BuffaloX]

Linux IS the virus, and it's spreading.

[JessicaW]

Can anybody tell me a Good Antivirus which take low Space in memory

[eldragon]

Ah yes,
ask someone who sells antivirus software for Linux if you need antivirus. Good idea. How about asking F-Secure if I really need an antivirus on my cellphone? I'm sure they'll be completely honest with their answer...
</sarcasm>

that was exactly my thought after reading the article...not knowing who the interviewed was, i figured he belonged to an AV company...

[az]

Here's an interesting security issue I've been thinking about:

Third-party repos/CDs: As far as I know, package managers do not verify the authenticity of packages beyond simply verifying the GPG key of the source itself and then verifying the hash of the package. This does not certify that the package itself is without malware. There is no repository of verified hashes that package managers can rely on, so they assume that if the user trusts the source, then the source must be trustworthy.

Package signatures only provide one thing: a signature assures you that the package is indeed by the person whom you think it's from. It's an authentification of the package signer. It is not an assurance of quality, nor a stamp of approval. The GPG signature is not meant to tell the user that a particular package is okay, it only means that it is from a particular person.

If you work in an open environment with lots of users (like a school, for example), you will encounter a need for AV software simply because a lot of untrusted storage media will likely find its way in there.

So what? Tell me exactly how this puts my Ubuntu OS at risk?

[rai4shu2]

In a computer lab, for example, it's not uncommon for students to smuggle in warez on USB sticks or SD cards. It's not inconceivable that said warez contain malware.

[CSMatt]

I tried ClamWin with Winpooch for real-time scanning and it actually made my system run even slower than it did when it was running Symantec Corporate Edition. I inevidably had to switch back to Symantec because it took so long to boot Windows ("boot" meaning "from startup to idle", i.e. the hard drive LED stops lighting up).

Oh crud. I just realized how old this thread was. Apparently I was loading the cache when I kept restoring my browsing session. Sorry.

[eldragon]

yes, well, although computer labs trend to have lots of untrusted software being run.....its well known that a user with no administrative priviledges cant damage the whole system....so a simple deletion of the infected user should fix your malware problem. instead of hoaxing the whole system like what would happen with a windows xp install. or maybe im way off. and even without admin priviledges, a user can write the boot partition installing a rootkit that would hoax the whole system. any light in this subject please?

of cousre booting from a livecd is out of the question, of course you can always damage a system with a livecd

[DalekClock]

This is one of the only things they did right in Vista. They made each part of the OS it's own compartment that can't be violated by other compartments. Where before, someone could write a virus that used the print driver to exploit the whole system, now that virus will be contained in the printer compartment. So a virus can only mess up the compartment that it originates in.

True but not true. I know the Windows user base. They're generally the same, and will get so annoyed by the security features that they disable them, quite easily through the Control Panel, opening their computer to a wide range of attacks.

The Linux user base, however, are generally a lot more tame and security-concious. And any Windows user who switches to Linux will probably not understand how to disable these security features.

[the_darkside_986]

One problem with Windows NT is that some developers, for no good reason at all, decide to design their software to be only run as Admin. I can even name two problematic software that do this: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the stupid e-mail client written by Earthlink. Both of those, when installed on Windows XP, only allow themselves to be run by root. And since they are both closed-source, the security holes could be a serious problem--at least with the e-mail client. GTA:SA isn't really an online game so it might be less of a problem.

Fortunately, I replaced my Windows installation with Ubuntu and FreeBSD so I don't have to worry about that mess.