Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
From the looks of it, a user wouldn't have had to do anything other than install the software to be vulnerable. Vulnerabilities of this severity are extremely rare on Linux, most of the ones you hear about require at least two mistakes on the user's part (e.g., installing an iffy package then visiting an iffy website).
But you are NOT paying with your $$$ (not saying you should give up your privacy ether). Personally I refuse to pay for any antivirus software and never would, unless maybe I was running a corporate network of some kind.
In terms of 'how to use words', all I was doing was making the point that in certain situations (talking about Linux only, not Windowz) it would be a valid security measure to use antivirus software, nothing more!
In terms of your link; a) that's one antivirus program. b) any other piece of software (including the Linux kernel itself) at some point in time has had security flaws in it (this is why 'white hats' exist, to discover them and get them fixed).
I do agree with you (at least I think this is what your getting at, anyway) that following best security practices (and using plain common sense, for that matter) can go a LONG way to protecting your PC, from being at risk in the first place.
But my original points remain the same and if you what to disagree, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Sorry.
As jefro pointed out I haven't posted on this thread since page 1. I have, however, been following everyone's comments, and thank you all for your input. My original question was answered, to my satisfaction, early on in the thread, in that the consensus of opinion seems to be that antivirus can be useful but not critical, and that backing-up any files, using a firewall and using lots of commonsense are still the best policy.
I have never used anti virus/anti-malware software on my Linux boxes.
That being said, it is not true that if you don't run software with a user that can elevate to root that the software can't gain root privileges. There are all kinds of exploits/buffer overflows etc.. that can give software root permissions even if your user cannot escalate to root.
Even when I used Windows (in another time in a galaxy far far away), I didn't use antivirus software. I just formatted and reinstalled if I had major issues.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.