What Anti-virus do you use?

[Hyper Tails]

I use Avast 4.8 under wine.

Love it

PS: you should have a anti-virus because as a operating system gets more popular like windows and more viruses are outhere
and beside without an anti-virus is like going out in the middle of winter without proper dressing
and noone should be Hey I'm going to download everything because there are barely any viruses for Linux!!!111!!!

thats not true there are more viruses out there (i got affected once)
and it's like nails getting pounded into wood as windows is the tallest and linux is the shortest and that nail is getting taller by the day

Stay safe, Have an anti-viruses
Please vote and post which ant-virus you use :)

[Grant A.]

Avast won't check for Linux viruses in WINE, sorry. BTW, running WINE allows a good number of Windows viri to infect your computer, since it is a clone of the Windows API.

[OutOfReach]

Yeah, AFAIK Avast only checks for Windows viruses, which would really make sense on a Linux machine.

(On-Topic) I don't use any Anti-Virus. But I used Symantec AV in my Windows days.

[Hyper Tails]

Avast won't check for Linux viruses in WINE, sorry. BTW, running WINE allows a good number of Windows viri to infect your computer, since it is a clone of the Windows API.

I better find a better anti-viruses, because I have wine and I can get affeted like Windows?

[Sealbhach]

None.

I never got a virus running Windows either. But I used AV in windows.


.

[Grant A.]

Ah, I forgot to add, Linux is on a much more secure base than Windows, there are only ~30 viri for it while Windows has 200,000+. Also, please don't use the, "It's because Linux has a lower market share" Macs have around 2 viri and have an 8% market share compared to Linux's less than 1% market share with ~30 viri.

And Tails, yes, you can be affected by Windows viri in WINE. WINE's mission is to completely clone the Windows API, even if that means getting every virus in the world to run on it.

[Joeb454]

Avast won't check for Linux viruses in WINE, sorry. BTW, running WINE allows a good number of Windows viri to infect your computer, since it is a clone of the Windows API.

That's not true at all.

Windows viruses cannot affect linux, sure they can trash your Wine install, which can be a pain. But then you just purge all Wine config files and start again.

Other than that a windows virus wouldn't do a whole lot on a Linux machine

[dannytatom]

I ran an anti-virus scanner in Windows once after having my laptop for 3 years and it didn't find anything. All it did was make my laptop sluggish the whole time it ran. :/

Common sense is the best anti-virus.

[Grant A.]

Windows viruses cannot affect linux, sure they can trash your Wine install, which can be a pain. But then you just purge all Wine config files and start again.

Other than that a windows virus wouldn't do a whole lot on a Linux machine

Actually, it can also invite all of it's malware friends to your home folder. And if you give WINE root access or have sudo running, spyware and adware can have their go.

[vishzilla]

I dont use an AV

[aysiu]

Anti-virus is useless.

Set up proper security layers (yes, this can be done even in Windows XP), use strong passwords, and don't enable unnecessary network services you don't know how to secure.

Oh, and don't be stupid. Read up about social engineering and dodgy websites.

[eternalnewbee]

What is anti-virus?;)

[ice60]

i've got clam, but i've seen av experts say it's not best, maybe the unpacker isn't too hot or something like that. i don't use it much though and never done a full system scan under linux.

i keep trying to remember to run one of those rootkit checkers, but keep forgetting!

[p_quarles]

jdong is too humble to submit it to the Cafe, but he has a good blog post explaining exactly why the anti-virus model of security is so fundamentally flawed:
http://www.friedcpu.net/?p=70

For those wanting the even shorter version: you can defeat an anti-virus scanner by changing a few lines of code in the virus source file. They do nothing to make you safe.

[FuturePilot]

None.

[Hyper Tails]

Avast won't check for Linux viruses in WINE, sorry. BTW, running WINE allows a good number of Windows viri to infect your computer, since it is a clone of the Windows API.

Oh I forgot to tell you I also have clam
Which I like Klam better

[Polygon]

Anti-virus is useless.

Set up proper security layers (yes, this can be done even in Windows XP), use strong passwords, and don't enable unnecessary network services you don't know how to secure.

Oh, and don't be stupid. Read up about social engineering and dodgy websites.

running as an non administrator in windows is useless. tons of programs need administrator access to work properly, including lots of games.

there are many free anti virus programs out there, so not running one is kinda stupid, even for people who know what they are doing.

[Grant A.]

running as an non administrator in windows is useless. tons of programs need administrator access to work properly, including lots of games.

That's what 'run as another user' is for. ;)

[itsStephen]

I don't use one.

[Polygon]

that doesn't work for a lot of things though. running windows as anything but an administrator is just a waste of time in my opinion (through my experiences)

[Sweet Spot]

Nutin. When I was using Windows (4 years ago?) I might have run AVG, but found it to be kind of a waste of space. I knew that some of the sites I was visiting were the cause of a lot of spyware and such, so I'd also run things such as Spybot and Adaware. But my belief now, is that if you're careful of where you go and of what you download, anti-virus software isn't necessary at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the sole reason that anti virus software exists at all, is for pure profit, and not to protect anybody. And anything else is just mere coincidence etc..

JMHO.

Doug

[Grant A.]

I personally think the AV companies are paying some guy in Vietnam or another 3rd world country to write viri.

[linuxguymarshall]

On my Windows boxes I use ClamWin for scanning and AVG Free for active download scanning.

[x0as]

None on linux & OS X, nod32 on windows.

[crazyness003]

I personally think the AV companies are paying some guy in Vietnam or another 3rd world country to write viri.
naah, that'd cost too much. They make a bunch of fake stuff and have their software "save" you from the peril of the KETCHUP VIRUS! (or is it catsup...cant remember), which fills your monitor with catsup! RAWR!

Anyway, another place virii originate from is email, esp from Nigerian Princes wanting to give you $6MM just because.

Again, dont be stupid and you'll be 99% protected.

[magmon]

I use clam for scanning of one file, and AVG for scanning a large number of files, or sometimes the whole computer.

[lykwydchykyn]

jdong is too humble to submit it to the Cafe, but he has a good blog post explaining exactly why the anti-virus model of security is so fundamentally flawed:
http://www.friedcpu.net/?p=70

For those wanting the even shorter version: you can defeat an anti-virus scanner by changing a few lines of code in the virus source file. They do nothing to make you safe.

I must agree 100%. The apparmor approach is the way to go, I wish it could be made friendlier.

There is unfortunately a lot of "superstition" that goes around when it comes to securing a computer; one example is the notion that the AV is the centerpiece of computer security. There *are* security issues when you run Linux, but viruses are not one of them. When or if that changes, I'm sure we'll all know about it.

Realize that no anti-virus protects you against unknown viruses. They scan for signatures of known threats. If you're wasting time and cpu resources running a virus scanner on your box, you might want to take a moment to check if its signature database actually contains signatures for any Linux viruses, and if any of those viruses are still a threat to a modern, fully patched system.

If you run network services exposed to the internet, however, make sure you know how to properly secure it, and keep an eye on your log files for suspicious activity. A cracked Linux box is a useful tool in the hands of criminals.

[RATM_Owns]

My anti-virus IS Ubuntu. :P

[wolfen69]

don't use antivirus ever since i ditched windows.

[magmon]

Realize that no anti-virus protects you against unknown viruses. They scan for signatures of known threats. If you're wasting time and cpu resources running a virus scanner on your box, you might want to take a moment to check if its signature database actually contains signatures for any Linux viruses, and if any of those viruses are still a threat to a modern, fully patched system.


http://www.threatfire.com/

[jcwmoore]

Common sense is the best anti-virus.

the latest and greatest AV software will never be able to protect people from being stupid. don't give out personal information, don't download unknown files, and don't click on the links in emails from strangers. all this is common sense but that is still how viruses, malware and identity theft happen...

[Grant A.]

the latest and greatest AV software will never be able to protect people from being stupid.

But... but... sudo can!

(according to canonical)

[T2manner]

Anti-Virus programs in Linux are for paranoid people who are used to Windows.

I hate reading about people who think anti-virus programs are a necessity in Linux.
Ignorance.

[lykwydchykyn]

http://www.threatfire.com/
Taking for granted that there's anything to their marketing hype, then I'll stand corrected. What I should have said is that no *traditional* "download definitions and scan for the baddies" antivirus will protect against unknowns.

reading about threatfire's "behavioral analysis" approach makes me wonder if it doesn't do something similar to apparmor.

It's basically a question of default allow vs. default deny.

[Perfect Storm]

None.

[Twitch6000]

Oh this thread is so hilarious, the fud flying left and right, the flaming, and of course the just funny comment.

Okay I really think the fanboyism needs to stop for one second at least.( yeah yeah impossible I know)

First of all GET OVER IT PEOPLE LINUX HAS VIRUSES.

Oh yeah now I am going to get a reply saying this is fud lol.

Anyways Second of all Even though Linux does have viruses do we need Anti Virus, the answer depends on You.

I really think it depends if you run a server or not.

It has been tons of times before.Linux by default is secure.

Then some distros Like Ubuntu take it to a next level.

I mean look you have closed ports,a firewall,limited root access,and many other things.

Lastly Look at what you can browse with sheesh...

By default you have Firefox...(now there are many others too)

With Firefox,a few addons,smart web browsing, and staying updated you won't get hacked or any viruses.

I mean really Adblock plus and maybe noscript(choice is yours) along with the updates is just wow...

So yeah people its just all comes down to you.

By default Linux is secure. Then each distro has their own way to make it better and even more secure.

So I see it as if you get hacked or a virus its a dang good chance it is your fault.

Heck most of the time its the same case in Windows.

(I know it is for me sadly lol)


OH and as too the main question I use clamav on both Linux and Windows.

[lisati]

I don't currently have anti-virus installed on my *ubuntu installations. I did toy with the free linx-friendly version of AVG for a while (see here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=889552))

[I-75]

I use AVG for my XP computers. Nothing for Linux.

[aysiu]

running as an non administrator in windows is useless. tons of programs need administrator access to work properly, including lots of games. SuRun allows you to specify certain programs to be run as administrator.
there are many free anti virus programs out there, so not running one is kinda stupid, even for people who know what they are doing. Anti-virus is not an effective security measure, so running one is kinda stupid.

[zmjjmz]

I never had any success with SuDown on my XP machine, (I'll try SuRun I guess).
Currently my AV protection for that machine comes in the form of NoScript and a firewall. It's hardly used.

[kevdog]

If someone can show me a wild Linux virus, please show me!!! I would love to test it out in my system -- and I'm not talking about ones that may run in Wine.

The entire concept that you need an antivirus with Linux is ridiculous. You don't. You don't even need a firewall unless you are going to be running programs that except outside connections.

Stop thinking the MS way. Its so bad, that many with the purchase of a new Windows machine, antivirus and firewall are mentioned in the same breath. Imagine selling a product, and then selling another product to protect the first product. Why don't you just make the first product more secure so you don't need the second product? Ridiculous!!

[insane_alien]

why do people think viruses are related to popularity, its the design principles of the entire OS that its related to.

and as for popularity, all the juicy stuff(high value targets for hackers) is on servers which likely run linux/unix anyway. the motivation is there in buckets.

[Barrucadu]

I have no antivirus, because it'd be a bit useless really. Also, the only windows systems my files come into contact with are the computers at school, and I'd hope that they are virus-free.

[billgoldberg]

I use Avast 4.8 under wine.

Love it

PS: you should have a anti-virus because as a operating system gets more popular like windows and more viruses are outhere
and beside without an anti-virus is like going out in the middle of winter with out proper dressing
and noone should be Hey I'm going to download everything because there are barely any viruses for Linux!!!111!!!

thats not true there are more viruses out there (i got affected once)
and it's like nails getting pounded into wood as windows is the tallest and linux is the shortest and that nail is getting taller by the day

Stay safe, Have an anti-viruses
Please vote and post which ant-virus you use :)

A anti-virus on the linux destkop is useless, totally useless.

If you want to stay safe, just install the updates you get.

[insane_alien]

I have no antivirus, because it'd be a bit useless really. Also, the only windows systems my files come into contact with are the computers at school, and I'd hope that they are virus-free.

the point of an antivirus on linux is so that YOU don't infect THEIR computers.

while linux cannot be infected by a windows virus(or any other virus unless the user actively installs it in which case no antivirus in the world could save you) it can have a virus lying dormant on the harddrive. to explain this better i will use an example.

Joe runs linux.
He downloads a file(say a pdf) that has been infected with some windows virus.
As linux can't run the virus, he will see it as an ordinary pdf.
Bob, Joe's friend, wants a copy of the pdf, so joe gives it to him on a pendrive.
Bob gets home to his windows machine, loads up the pdf and BAM! he just got infected.

the point is, linux can be a carrier, but not a victim. this is why it can make sense to run an antivirus on linux. but if you rarely send files to other people then it is probably not worth it.

Now, there are some linux specific viruses, mostly proof of concept stuff written in a computer science lab and never released to the wild. what make linux secure is that in a remarkably short period, patches will be concocted an released that fix the vulnerability that let the virus in. not some adhoc virus scanner definition file. the actual attack vector will be eliminated so that the virus is no longer a virus and no other potential virus can use that attack vector.

with windows on the other hand, it is very rare that security holes get patched quickly(if at all) this is due to its closed source nature and limited number of developers. Also, the structure of the OS, which they tried and failed to remedy with UAC, is inherently insecure. coupled with the fact that most people run in admin/superuser mode anyway which means that the entire system can be infected.

linux doesn't run like this so even if there is an infection, it is limited and compartmentalised.

[kevdog]

That example is ridiculous -- run Linux to protect another person's Windows installation?? Frankly I don't care if I'm a carrier or not. I own both windows and linux computers. I secure the window's boxes as best as I can, use a router/NAT. I don't expect my Linux computers to protect my Window's computers.

[ice60]

I never had any success with SuDown on my XP machine, (I'll try SuRun I guess).
Currently my AV protection for that machine comes in the form of NoScript and a firewall. It's hardly used.

here's a thread about it if you're interested.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=196737

EDIT i read through it quickly and saw some of them use a small program called kafu.exe with SuRun, i think for autostarting software?
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1296513&postcount=346

i stopped using windows a few years ago, but i still read a little about windows security and it looks like a lot of people use rollbackback software now and vitualization software to keep them safe like -
Sandboxie for running things like browsers sandboxed
and these i've seen mentioned a lot -
Returnil, Powershadow, Shadowprotect, Deepfreeze

[ice60]

Realize that no anti-virus protects you against unknown viruses. They scan for signatures of known threats. If you're wasting time and cpu resources running a virus scanner on your box, you might want to take a moment to check if its signature database actually contains signatures for any Linux viruses, and if any of those viruses are still a threat to a modern, fully patched system.

i don't know about linux AVs, but i'm sure it's no different to windows ones and they have all started to go away from signature based detection and use heuristics now, even kaspersky which always used to come out on top in tests moved away from signatures.

[Kevbert]

I use ClamAv only because I use a DOS/Windows emulator in Linux. It will only find Windows viruses which may infect shared Windows drives. Now my Windows drives that's where I use AV, anti-spyware, anti-malware etc....

[Paqman]

I don't expect my Linux computers to protect my Window's computers.

^^This.

Although in reality, by using Linux you are helping Windows users. You're one less machine that potentially join a botnet.

(Which is not to say that rootkitted Linux boxes can't end up in botnets, it's just very rare. The vast armies of zombies in botnets are Windows boxes, generally to only Linux machines in them are command and control boxes)

[Hyper Tails]

If someone can show me a wild Linux virus, please show me!!! I would love to test it out in my system -- and I'm not talking about ones that may run in Wine.

The entire concept that you need an antivirus with Linux is ridiculous. You don't. You don't even need a firewall unless you are going to be running programs that except outside connections.

Stop thinking the MS way. Its so bad, that many with the purchase of a new Windows machine, antivirus and firewall are mentioned in the same breath. Imagine selling a product, and then selling another product to protect the first product. Why don't you just make the first product more secure so you don't need the second product? Ridiculous!!

http://www.allpest.com/termite_desktop_game.html
:)

and proven

I got effected by this file

[gabhla]

As I've been Window-less and using Linux for almost eight years, almost forgot about anti-virus gunk. None here.

[insane_alien]

That example is ridiculous -- run Linux to protect another person's Windows installation?? Frankly I don't care if I'm a carrier or not. I own both windows and linux computers. I secure the window's boxes as best as I can, use a router/NAT. I don't expect my Linux computers to protect my Window's computers.

okay, change the scenario then,

you are the network administrator for a company, your servers are linux but the workstations are windows, it would make sense to install an antivirus on the mail server to stop viruses from getting into the network rather than relying solely on the anti virus's on the workstations dealing with it each and every time they contact the mail server.

i was just trying to keep the example simple. and security cannot be achieved by one person alone, i don't want to be infecting people and if i'm sending them files then i'm probably friends of some sort with them. i don't know about you but i don't give my friends computer viruses.

[klange]

I have Clam, but I haven't scanned in a very long time.
I run it through my own fork of ClamTK. ClamTK's interface doesn't follow any guidelines while mine looks a lot better and color codes the list of files scanned so you can easily identify viruses, even when the list shows everything (Screenshot (http://random.ogunderground.com/gclam_clamtk_compare.png)).

[Dr Small]

What's this "anti-virus" you speak of?

[gn2]

~ viri ~

The English language plural of virus is viruses.

There isn't a Latin plural of the word virus.

[gn2]

Imagine selling a product, and then selling another product to protect the first product. Why don't you just make the first product more secure so you don't need the second product? Ridiculous!!

But then you don't get any revenue from sales of the second product (http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-gb/purchase/default.htm), which over a period of time makes more money per user than the first product.

[aysiu]

okay, change the scenario then,

you are the network administrator for a company, your servers are linux but the workstations are windows, it would make sense to install an antivirus on the mail server to stop viruses from getting into the network rather than relying solely on the anti virus's on the workstations dealing with it each and every time they contact the mail server. Well, of course people would run anti-virus in that situation. I wonder what the ratio of "I run a Linux server that serves a number of Windows workstations" to "I run Linux as a home server or home desktop/laptop" users there is on these forums. I'd be willing to bet the latter outnumber the former.


i don't know about linux AVs, but i'm sure it's no different to windows ones and they have all started to go away from signature based detection and use heuristics now, even kaspersky which always used to come out on top in tests moved away from signatures. Which leads to a lot of false positives, which again puts the ball in the user's court. You can't leave it up to an automated program to decide what is safe and what is not safe.

[cardinals_fan]

As I have said before, I am opposed to using antivirus on any platform. ISPs and webmail providers screen thoroughly enough that real viruses (that infect computers w/out user knowledge) are extremely rare. Almost all "viruses" are really trojans or other malware that rely on social engineering (user incompetence) to infect machines. I use NoScript and don't do stupid things. Problem solved.

I do recommend a firewall. A good one won't be too resource-hungry, and they are a good protection just in case.

[MarblePanther]

Common sense and a firewall are sufficient on linux

Most distros have iptables or another type of packet filter...

unfortunately common sense is harder to come by ;)

edit: hardware firewall's are extra nice!

[Paqman]

The English language plural of virus is viruses.

There isn't a Latin plural of the word virus.

Here here! I'm not normally a pedant about language, but the word "virii" just bugs the hell out of me.

There is no such word as "virii", it's made-up cod Latin.

[bonzodog]

http://www.allpest.com/termite_desktop_game.html
:)
and proven
I got effected by this file

um...That file cannot infect a linux machine?

Look at the file extension. Its a Windows Executable, and will NOT run on Linux without wine. Its designed to infect Windows, not Linux. Your Linux system may be carrying it, but its not actually affecting the linux system.
What it might have done is infect your wine user install directory, which will be located at ~/.wine. Simply open a terminal, and run 'rm -rf .wine'. It will hose all windows games, settings etc that you have under wine, but nothing else.

[inxygnuu]

AFAIK, windows viruses cant affect Linux, because we don't have C:\windows\system32\_________, so it is kind of like this: "delete C:\windows\system32... ERROR! C:\windows\system32 not found!" or something like that, and I know that wine creates a system32 directory, but it wont ever find "logonui.exe" or anything like that. and the only way that viruses can really affect Ubuntu/Linux is through terminal, which must be executed by us. So, until Ubuntu gets more popular, no spyware, registry, or windows tune-up programs will be needed. Not only that, but (by my guess,) 98% of people who even know what Ubuntu is are willing to make a virus and distribute it to us

AV free with Linux,
3v4n;):)

[inobe]

i do not use a anti whatever.

i do use tripwire, its fully configured ;)


i don't do things that will allow others to target my machine, i tend to stick with trusted sites, if i run ftp its locked down tight, ports are specifically set and tweaked, i pass shields up tests pass with flying colors, even bt connections are monitored 24/7 when active, never even experienced a DoS attack.

shields up
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

run a hardware file wall, a router for example, if you don't have a router' but you have an old clunker pc' simply stick smoothwall on it .

smoothwall
http://www.smoothwall.org/

viruses on opensourse is a waste of time, simply said' they are destroyed sometimes within an hour of their discovery, that is the power of openness !

now for proprietary and closed source, well' that is their problem.

[cmay]

i have not have had a single anti virus shot in some years now. i fear needles so do not go see the doctor as much as i should. right now i am in fact sick to the bones and i just know that when i go to see my doctor tomorrow he will give me a anti vira shot and i now am unable to sleep because i am just thinking about that big fat needle he is going to stick me with and that is making me tremble in fear . so i do not use any anti virus if i can help it.

[Grant A.]

Here here! I'm not normally a pedant about language, but the word "virii" just bugs the hell out of me.

There is no such word as "virii", it's made-up cod Latin.

Viri is the plural form used specifically for computer viruses.

Viri = Multiple computer viruses

Viruses = Multiple real-life viruses.


Do we honestly need another potato potato debate? Honestly, quit debating about language, this is how it evolves. Without the introduction of words, we would still be grunting.

[sunoccard]

viruses is the correct word, but it feels like it should have some other meaning, i guess i'm relating it to the word versus. either way virii in latin is already taken, so yeah we couldn't use it as a variation

[Grant A.]

viruses is the correct word, but it feels like it should have some other meaning, i guess i'm relating it to the word versus. either way virii in latin is already taken, so yeah we couldn't use it as a variation

Since when can't words have two meanings? Look at lead (to show the way) and lead (the rock). Hell, some words have 4 different meanings.

[Polygon]

SuRun allows you to specify certain programs to be run as administrator. Anti-virus is not an effective security measure, so running one is kinda stupid.

i disagree. Since windows does not really have proper permission support (as in administrator is default, etc), unless your a really sheltered computer user, you are going to be downloading and running stuff. Since windows is notorious for its security holes, and stuffing getting downloaded through internet explorer/outlook express without any user interaction, i would not feel safe running without one. An entire game company had their video game in development hacked and released on the internet through an exploit in outlook express. Now, if video game developers arnt one of the more smarter computer users, then i don't know who is.

i do remember that study, its most likely outdated now, but a default windows xp installation gets infected by something if connected to the Internet in a very short amount of time....Im sure windows vista is a bit better at it, but i still would not trust running windows without some sort of anti virus + spybot/teatimer running. Combined with my 'smart' computer usage, using firefox, not downloading and running too shady of programs, i have never had a virus in my life, and i plan to keep it that way

[cardinals_fan]

i disagree. Since windows does not really have proper permission support (as in administrator is default, etc), unless your a really sheltered computer user, you are going to be downloading and running stuff. Since windows is notorious for its security holes, and stuffing getting downloaded through internet explorer/outlook express without any user interaction, i would not feel safe running without one. An entire game company had their video game in development hacked and released on the internet through an exploit in outlook express. Now, if video game developers arnt one of the more smarter computer users, then i don't know who is.

i do remember that study, its most likely outdated now, but a default windows xp installation gets infected by something if connected to the Internet in a very short amount of time....Im sure windows vista is a bit better at it, but i still would not trust running windows without some sort of anti virus + spybot/teatimer running. Combined with my 'smart' computer usage, using firefox, not downloading and running too shady of programs, i have never had a virus in my life, and i plan to keep it that way
I never ran antivirus apps, and when I finally ran a scan (6 years later), I had nothing on my XP install.

[lisati]

The safest and easiest way I know of for keeping out malware (viruses, virii, trojans, worms, rootkits, or whatever) is by pulling out ALL the plugs..... This works no matter which OS you prefer, but happens to be a trifle inconvenient when it comes to actually doing something productive with your machine.

[aysiu]

i disagree. Since windows does not really have proper permission support (as in administrator is default, etc) You don't really disagree. I said you have to install and use SuRun. SuRun allows you to have proper permission support. Please read my post before deciding to "disagree." Thanks.

[abhilashkumar]

If I use something like ext2 IFS and make the linux partitions available in windows, can I then scan them using windows antivirus programs?

[fatality_uk]

On my home network (All Linux machines) I have no need for anti-virus. On my work laptop, I scan incomming documents as some of the network users still have Windows therefore I have to ensure that any malware isnt transmitted by my machine.

[speedwell68]

I don't run a AV under Ubuntu. I used to but gave up around the time 7.10 came out, as I never used the thing. I use XP in VirtualBox. I only use XP in a VirtualBox so I can rip CDs and write the files to my USB Sony Minidisc Recorder and that is it. XP does have access to the net through the Ubuntu host, but the only time I actually access the internet is with Sony Sonic Stage, the minidisc software, to automatically get CD track names. So would it be worth running an AV program in my VirtualBox?

[Zlatan]

I use Avast 4.8 under wine.

Love it

PS: you should have a anti-virus because as a operating system gets more popular like windows and more viruses are outhere
and beside without an anti-virus is like going out in the middle of winter with out proper dressing
and noone should be Hey I'm going to download everything because there are barely any viruses for Linux!!!111!!!
[...]

What about server marketshare for linux?

[xpod]

None.
Only ever used AV products for the few months i used Windows and my first week with Ubuntu.

[Polygon]

You don't really disagree. I said you have to install and use SuRun. SuRun allows you to have proper permission support. Please read my post before deciding to "disagree." Thanks.

i did read your post, you never even gave a link to sunrun so i cannot even try it, google keeps bringing up searches for a solar power company.

and some third party program does not magically fix the permission flaws in every windows installation. sure, i may install it, but what about those countless other installations? what about people who have little knowledge about the workings of a computer, whose computer was set up with an administrator account by default? would you recommend that they not run any anti virus software?

the real problem is that windows does not have proper permissions built in. that every prebuilt computer sets up an administrator account by default, that UAC is so annoying and counter-intuitive that it drives people to turn it off or just ignore it completely. And even with proper permission support, people are stupid. If linux ever takes off to the mainstream, people are going to do stupid stuff on that too and compromise their systems. Anti virus programs are just another layer of security that some people need. Just because anti virus programs are 'not good security' for you, doesn't mean everyone should just go and uninstall theirs

and i sense that you are angry at me or think i am stupid through the tone of your post , i don't mean any harm to you D:

[Grant A.]

i did read your post, you never even gave a link to sunrun so i cannot even try it, google keeps bringing up searches for a solar power company.

He said SuRun, not SunRun.

[Polygon]

=P maybe thats why i didnt find it

edit: the google translation of the site (written in german) makes me cry.

[WaeV]

I've been using no anti-virus for maybe 3 months and no viruses on XP. I had my friend disable his firewall/anti-virus in an attempt to play an online game, and his computer crashed with a virus 3 days later. :/

[inxygnuu]

I never ran antivirus apps, and when I finally ran a scan (6 years later), I had nothing on my XP install.

Then 1-3 of 3 things happened.
1) This is a fake story.
2) your av was broke.
3) you never used th windows installation.

[Grant A.]

Then 1-3 of 3 things happened.
1) This is a fake story.
2) your av was broke.
3) you never used th windows installation.

A lot of people just can't handle the fact Windows, with proper administration, is much more secure than many lead it to be.

[cardinals_fan]

Then 1-3 of 3 things happened.
1) This is a fake story.
2) your av was broke.
3) you never used th windows installation.
1) It isn't. If you don't want to believe me, that's your choice.

2) I tried four different leading products. Besides, if they really were "broke", running one wouldn't have helped much. If they couldn't catch the infections you're so sure were on my PC, what good are they?

3) This was before I tried Linux. I used that installation almost every day for six years. Of course, my definition of use doesn't include clicking the banner ads for "Free Popular Screensavers!" or searching Google for "free porn" and clicking the links. It does include organizing photos, trying new software, browsing the web with Firefox or Opera and NoScript, typing documents, messing around with scripting, listening to music, and playing quick games.

[lykwydchykyn]

3) This was before I tried Linux. I used that installation almost every day for six years. Of course, my definition of use doesn't include clicking the banner ads for "Free Popular Screensavers!" or searching Google for "free porn" and clicking the links. It does include organizing photos, trying new software, browsing the web with Firefox or Opera and NoScript, typing documents, messing around with scripting, listening to music, and playing quick games.

Not to call anyone out, but I have to say that from my own experiences running windows, my experience taking care of Windows machines at work, and my experience helping people with their personal computers -- BEHAVIOR is the single biggest factor in how secure your machine is. With some notable exceptions, the people who get spyware at my job are often notorious repeat offenders, while others go years without a single issue.

(The current notable exception is the "antivirus 2009" spyware, which is about killing us)

The seven years we ran windows at home, I got 2 viruses and 1 spyware infection:
- One virus came after I installed pirated software. Last time I ever did that.
- The spyware came after my lovely wife took it upon herself to install a free game. Poor thing, she has never installed software on any system ever since, even though I tried to be gentle in explaining things to her.
- The other virus was the sasser worm. I got it because I didn't do security updates (using dialup and afraid to hose my machine).

So, to make a long story less long, I can understand that someone with safe habits could run Windows for years without problems. But it's not guaranteed, either. AV2009 is a primary example (for those who aren't familiar, http://fostergrant.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/flash-ad-that-hijacks-your-clipboard/) of a threat that affects "responsible" users as much as anyone else.

[securitynut]

With the ever increasing advancements in technology, even the most cautious users can fall victim to the average malware or spyware. On the windows machines i have always run AVG as it's helped me out of some rather precarious situations. It has a good track record too.

[cardinals_fan]

So, to make a long story less long, I can understand that someone with safe habits could run Windows for years without problems. But it's not guaranteed, either. AV2009 is a primary example (for those who aren't familiar, http://fostergrant.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/flash-ad-that-hijacks-your-clipboard/) of a threat that affects "responsible" users as much as anyone else.
I don't think that would work unless I allowed the script to run (I use NoScript). Unless it's a trustworthy site, I wouldn't.

[Frak]

I use NOD32 on Windows XP, NOD32 64-bit edition on Windows Vista-x64, and nothing on Ubuntu, because your chances of being infected are between nil and none (as long as you don't download and execute everything you find, which is expected of any OS).

[lisati]

(as long as you don't download and execute everything you find, which is expected of any OS).

+1: Using good sense is always a good starting place for keeping safe.

[MikeTheC]

RE: User Polygon


Please read my post before deciding to "disagree." Thanks.


What a pity the two of you can't simply agree to disagree... :p

[handy]

This is the first time in over 3 years of Linux & 8 years of Apple, (no need to discuss the bad old windows days) that I have ever been able to say I am using an anti-virus package.

I don't think I need it by the way. :-)

I just today installed the Copfilter (http://www.copfilter.org/) add-on onto my standalone IPCop (http://www.ipcop.org/) firewall/web proxy box.

Copfilter, amongst many other things, brings the ability to use multiple anti-virus packages simultaneously though it comes with only Clam installed by default, which I have turned on to observe if there is any noticeable slow down.

Though Copfilter also allowed me to turn on its pre-installed & really well configured Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) as well. I expect that if I get any slow down it will be due to Privoxy, though I may have enough CPU power to avoid that.

Time will tell?

[EnGorDiaz]

This is the first time in over 3 years of Linux & 8 years of Apple, (no need to discuss the bad old windows days) that I have ever been able to say I am using an anti-virus package.

I don't think I need it by the way. :-)

I just today installed the Copfilter (http://www.copfilter.org/) add-on onto my standalone IPCop (http://www.ipcop.org/) firewall/web proxy box.

Copfilter, amongst many other things, brings the ability to use multiple anti-virus packages simultaneously though it comes with only Clam installed by default, which I have turned on to observe if there is any noticeable slow down.

Though Copfilter also allowed me to turn on its pre-installed & really well configured Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) as well. I expect that if I get any slow down it will be due to Privoxy, though I may have enough CPU power to avoid that.

Time will tell?

im going to be setting up one soon myself

i think ipcop was a great idea among many

[handy]

im going to be setting up one soon myself

i think ipcop was a great idea among many

I think you will really enjoy it, it is so well done. I haven't had Copfilter on for long, but thus far I'm really happy with it as it incorporates so many well sorted add-ons for IPCop, it is really easy to use & I am not noticing a slow down even with Privoxy & Clam running on a PIII 731Mhz, with 256Mb of PC133 RAM & a 10Gb Seagate drive.

Copfilter is using a lot more RAM but it has only ever used swap once & very briefly [Edit:] & that was when I installed Copfilter :-) /edit. I may stick another 64Mb RAM in if I have any PC133 laying around. The CPU rarely does more than idle. :-)

[Swagman]

Is this guy right in his reply to this..





Koobface Virus Still Making The Rounds On Facebook ?

I am wearing my cloak of invincibility

We call it....

Ubuntu !!


http://www.whyzzat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22113#22113

[Paqman]

From the Symantec description of Koobface (http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2008-080315-0217-99):


Systems Affected: Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000

So, no this virus cannot affect an Ubuntu system. There are a small number of known viruses that can, but security patches have rendered them all impotent. That's why most people consider running antivirus suites on a Linux desktop to be a bit pointless.

[richg]

I use Ubuntu 8.04.1.

Rich

[Hyper Tails]

From the Symantec description of Koobface (http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2008-080315-0217-99):



So, no this virus cannot affect an Ubuntu system. There are a small number of known viruses that can, but security patches have rendered them all impotent. That's why most people consider running antivirus suites on a Linux desktop to be a bit pointless.

True as an os become more popular= more viruses
I got KlamAV now
It's good

[Paqman]

True as an os become more popular= more viruses
I got KlamAV now
It's good

Linux is already the OS of choice for many, many servers. The reason Linux has a good track record is not because it isn't widely used (because it is).

[shadowdude1794]

AVG for Windows XP, and nothing for Ubuntu. I'm planning on using Clam once I get around to it...

[Frak]

Linux is already the OS of choice for many, many servers. The reason Linux has a good track record is not because it isn't widely used (because it is).
Actually, the server market suffers from vulnerabilities in backends such as PHP, Java, asp, etc. Most exploits are executed over the interpreted interface other than just going after the OS itself. It's easier to pull info from a database using a PHP function on an interpreter than it is to find the chink in the armour of a Linux/Windows/Mac OS X server.

[MaxIBoy]

I better find a better anti-viruses, because I have wine and I can get affeted like Windows?

WINE hasn't duplicated a lot of Windows bugs so it's pretty safe. If you're worried, get rid of the default Z:\ drive in WINECFG.

[cardinals_fan]

Linux is already the OS of choice for many, many servers. The reason Linux has a good track record is not because it isn't widely used (because it is).
In addition to Frak's comments, I'd like to point out that few server admins click the banner ads for "Free Pony Screensavers!!!"

[Paqman]

In addition to Frak's comments, I'd like to point out that few server admins click the banner ads for "Free Pony Screensavers!!!"

No but they're also higher value targets. The payoff for cracking a server is much higher than said pony lover's box.

[cardinals_fan]

No but they're also higher value targets. The payoff for cracking a server is much higher than said pony lover's box.
However, taking advantage of vulnerabilities takes a good deal more skill than a fraudulent antivirus product or screensaver, which is possible for any script kiddie out there. Also, a personal desktop is not a big enough target to warrent detailed cracking. Social engineering schemes net many naive users and are the primary threat to desktop users.

[handy]

The following site is very interesting for those interested in IT security:

http://www.criticalsecurity.net/

[p_quarles]

In addition to Frak's comments, I'd like to point out that few server admins click the banner ads for "Free Pony Screensavers!!!"

To which I would add (hasn't this already been mentioned in this thread?):

The fact that viruses aren't a specific threat to Linux does not mean that Linux is more secure than Windows. It just means the threat is not viruses.

Let me repeat: there are plenty of security vulnerabilities that apply to machines running Linux. This ranges from exploits that target specific high level processes (javascript, say, in a web browser, or PHP if the target machine is running a web server) to social engineering attacks that could trick users into giving high permissions to malicious code. These are among the most common kinds of attacks, and while the specific elements of an attack may depend on the OS running underneath, the success of the attack depends only on the security-savvy of the person responsible for maintaining the high-level applications.

Viruses are a dying category of exploit that is somewhat specific to design flaws in Windows. It is only one kind of attack, and just as running an anti-virus doesn't make you a professional sysadmin, running an OS that doesn't have to worry about viruses doesn't make you safe against all the other things that can go wrong.