Would you use anti virus for linux?

[Kvark]

Please answer based on if you are more exprienced with windows or with linux and based on if you would use anti virus for linux.

The purpose of this poll is to see if peoples' experience in the specific operating systems linux and windows has any effect on whether or not they would use anti virus for linux. Thats why no other OS was included.

[poofyhairguy]

My best answer:

I hope I don't need to....but I would if I did.

[manicka]

Only if I was running a mail server for windows clients

Not generally necessary in Linux.

Some people also run one to weed out viruses in email in case they accidently forward them onto others by mistake, but I've never required that function.

[qalimas]

If my Linux box was a server I think I'd use an anti-virus to keep the Windows machines safe... but no, I don't run one.

I'd say I'm more experienced in Windows though, I've only been into linux for a couple or so years, and I have no certification in it, but I have my Software certification from CompTIA.

[Stormy Eyes]

I'd only use anti-virus if I was running a mail server that catered to Windows users. Otherwise, I see no need for one. I've used both Windows (at work) and Linux (at home), and I haven't had virus/spyware problems with either one yet.

[sonny]

I would use it if I need to... but right now (and for the next 5 years) I don't see a reason to use one for my own pc. As Stormy Eyes said, only if my machine is in touch with windows machines.

[primeirocrime]

I'm only familiar with virus strains on microsoft windows, until there is some propagation of that kind of quasi life form in my beloved gnu/linux i won't use an antivirus. Prevention before hard-core treatments made me switch to gnu/linux so I left the infectious host.

Hail to everyone from me.

[skirkpatrick]

I think it's a typical political poll in that it's skewed by the questions asked. You left out the one that I would have voted for: yes, if it became necessary. It's almost worded that you either wouldn't use an anti-virus program if they were rampant or that you would even if you didn't need to.

[Kvark]

I think it's a typical political poll in that it's skewed by the questions asked. You left out the one that I would have voted for: yes, if it became necessary. It's almost worded that you either wouldn't use an anti-virus program if they were rampant or that you would even if you didn't need to.

I would have named that option "No, but if it several years into the future may be neccessary, then I would..." but thats too long and too similar to no. You can't add options for every "what if" speculation.

[AntiDragon]

I voted no, and I am more experienced with Windows by far. But the only reason I wouldn't is because I know I'm secure (firewall wise) and because of the lack of Linux viruses in general. As Linux becomes more popular, the number of virii is bound to increase, although I doubt it will ever reach the levels of Windows viruses. Then of course I'd need an AV solution for Linux too. Hopefully that's a looong way of (the virus bit, not the Linux getting more popular bit! :D ).

[davahmet]

As Linux becomes more popular, the number of virii is bound to increase, although I doubt it will ever reach the levels of Windows viruses. Then of course I'd need an AV solution for Linux too.

Very unlikely that Linux will ever be plagued by the constant barrage of viruses that Windows suffers. Some reasons are social because of the open nature of Linux development, some are technical, but Linux has some very good built-in strengths that defend against viruses.

The notion that virus exposure goes up proportionally with popularity is a myth easily countered with the fact that Apache is the predominate web server by far, and has been for a number of years, yet count the number of viruses/trojans/worms affecting Apache as a comparison to the ones hitting IIS. The fact is that Apache has very few problems is from a good design, and the open development model used to build and maintain the system. It is no accident that the preferred zombie vector is IIS, simply that script kiddies are typically fairly lazy and not very innovative, leading them to go after easy prey. While creating a Linux virus is not impossible, it is very very difficult and nearly impossible to keep hidden or anonymous about, therefore it's just not worth the effort.

There is a rather lengthy discussion on this at http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=45168

[Kvark]

There is a rather lengthy discussion on this at http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=45168

It was that discussion that made me wonder about why some people see the need for linux based anti virus while others don't. And my guess was that the the question asked in this poll could be a reason for the different opinions. So far it seems I was wrong.

[Lunde]

Better safe... ClamAV is nice. I don't want anything to screw up my system or send viruses to others even tho I might not get infected

[AntiDragon]

The notion that virus exposure goes up proportionally with popularity is a myth easily countered with the fact that Apache is the predominate web server by far, and has been for a number of years, yet count the number of viruses/trojans/worms affecting Apache as a comparison to the ones hitting IIS. The fact is that Apache has very few problems is from a good design, and the open development model used to build and maintain the system. It is no accident that the preferred zombie vector is IIS, simply that script kiddies are typically fairly lazy and not very innovative, leading them to go after easy prey. While creating a Linux virus is not impossible, it is very very difficult and nearly impossible to keep hidden or anonymous about, therefore it's just not worth the effort.

[Bows down] Yup. You're right. I didn't think too hard about that!

My thoughts about the possibility of more Linux based viruses were purely social - I'd suspect that a large proportion of WinVirus writers exist because of a general animosity towards MS - not so much that it's so pervasive but that they forcibly line their pockets with our money wether we want them to or not . For those who have the um...skill (?)... writing a new virus for Windows earns them kudos with their peers and strikes another blow against the Evil Empire TM.

Sad but there you go. Of course, once there's a new virus out there all the script kiddies jump on it, making it even worse <sigh>. Still, with my nice buffer-overrun proof Ubuntu-64 I guess it's not my problem...Bwahaha! I honestly didn't figure the basic architectural difficulties in writing a *nix virus! ;-) So yeah, still no Linux AV for me!

[Sionide]

My best answer:

I hope I don't need to....but I would if I did.

That's exactly what I was going to say!

If the need arose where I should have to use a Linux anti-virus then I would, of course! It'd be free and open source wouldn't it?!

[KiwiNZ]

When needed yes , right now , no

[AgenT]

Please answer based on if you are more exprienced with windows or with linux and based on if you would use anti virus for linux.

The purpose of this poll is to see if peoples' experience in the specific operating systems linux and windows has any effect on whether or not they would use anti virus for linux. Thats why no other OS was included.

No need for anti-virus for Linux except when using Linux as email server that hosts mail for Windows machines. Because I would rather eat my left leg than use Windows machines, I do not see any need for anti-virus software. ;)

Also, there are already anti-virus software solutions for Linux, especially if one runs email servers. Having anti-virus software for Linux is sort of like having a firewall for Ubuntu default install: worthless.

[void_false]

I dont use antivirus/firewall in Win. Why should I bother 'bout it in Lin? ;-)

[aysiu]

I dont use antivirus/firewall in Win. Why should I bother 'bout it in Lin? ;-) You may not need to use antivirus if you're smart about what you do, but you really should use a firewall. There's one built into XP SP2, if you have it.

[TravisNewman]

if you're behind a router, most people won't need a firewall.

Anti-virus-- well as long as you don't use MS products to use email and you browse safely, and you have some sort of router/firewall, you'll probably be ok.

Linux virus prevention? If I had a server that served to Windows machines, sure, but no point without Windows on the network. Yet, anyway.

[polo_step]

This question is outdated.

Virus threats are trivial to computer users when compared to malware.

Viruses are kid stuff. Malware/spyware is big business. There's a compelling financial motive to distribute spy/malware, and it seems to be regarded as legal in the US.

For reasons that are not clear to me, anti-spy/malware software has not reached the competence and effectiveness levels of AV programs.

The only reason I'm on Linux now is because of the sheer hopelessness of using XP on the net and keeping it uninfected and fully functional. I'm repeatedly seeing claims that over 90% of tech support calls these days are due to problems caused by malware.

[Stemp]

Well,

I hope I don't need to....but I would if I did. © :lol:

I allready use ClamAV for emails (even if it's useless)

And I'm more concerned about spyware

[Ubuntu Warrior]

We have just recently installed a Squid web cache/proxy on Ubuntu Linux and have realised that without antivirus on this server we are severely vulnerable to attack. Each time we put the Squid system into production and moved some Windows users from their old M$ proxy an outbreak would occur. The Squid system seems to let viruses through onto the network and our Windows clients max out trying to fight the attack (we have McAfee protecting most of the Windows systems).

A couple of months back I would have laughed if anyone asked if I would use antivirus on a Linux server but now I realise it is a must if you support both Linux and Windows clients (which most organisations do). We are looking to migrate our file and print services from M$ to Linux in the near future but will have to resolve the antivirus problem first.

[jsimmons]

I don't run any AV programs on Windows, and I don't plan on doing it on Linux.

[gray-squirrel]

I have one (ClamAV) installed, but I will only use an anti-virus program in Linux if I'm using documents which are shared back and forth with Windows users. Why punish them for not following my lead. That's not really my style.

For as long as I use Windows, anti-virus and firewall software, and spyware prevention solutions are a must. I'm almost at a point, though, where I can handle Internet stuff exclusively within Linux. With its capability to write onto FAT partitions and floppy disks, I see no reason continue to use Windows indefinitely to download Windows software on a dual-boot system.

[jimcooncat]

You may not need to use antivirus if you're smart about what you do, but you really should use a firewall. There's one built into XP SP2, if you have it.

"Uncle Horndog" had a new XP SP1 machine last year. After a few months of surfing selected sites with IE, he brought it to me to clean up the spyware. I did so (and vowed never to do it again) then tightened the security on the machine.

I then installed SP2, and went back to the security settings to check, and the restrictions I had put in effect disappeared. The firewall SP2 installed had a few incoming holes in it (so Microsoft could remotely fix his computer?!?) so I closed them.

I then ran Windows Update and rechecked. The settings were again relaxed, and some of the ports I closed off had reopened.

Moral: You're much better off with a $50 Linksys router or a Smoothwall box (great for dialup) than you are with a softwall firewall that updates can monkey with.

I'd even suggest using one on your home LAN if you're installing unofficial packages on your Ubuntu machine, especially if it's not in source straight from the author. After all, you're usually running as root when doing the installation -- do you really know where that software's been?

[BWF89]

Crap!

I hit Yes, and I am more experienced with Linux when I ment to hit Yes, and I am more experienced with Windows.

[DarthBagel]

I would if I needed to, but right now I don't need to... so whats the point.

Hopefully Linux never gets to the point where we need anti-virus plus 3 different spyware apps running, but if Linux gets as popular as Windows is now... that may just be wishful thinking unfortunately.