LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This 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



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2011, 09:10 PM   #1
xcislav
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: 0
How not be virified?


I move extensively to Linux from Windows XP (where there are viruses pretty often).
Would you advise me please what to read or to do - not to fall in viruses, not to repeat the windows experiences?

I just need common sense from any experienced user.
 
Old 02-14-2011, 09:23 PM   #2
kbp
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,758

Rep: Reputation: 644Reputation: 644Reputation: 644Reputation: 644Reputation: 644Reputation: 644
Try starting with the sticky post here, get back to us if you have any questions

cheers
 
Old 02-14-2011, 09:24 PM   #3
corp769
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,814

Rep: Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001
Read or do about what?
 
Old 02-15-2011, 09:12 AM   #4
hughetorrance
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: London North West
Distribution: x86_64 Slack 13.37 current : +others
Posts: 459

Rep: Reputation: 59
Although I have installed avast and clam AV on some systems I have never used them... Linux is as far as I can tell pretty free from that sort of stuff with average use...as for using virified I very rarely use my plastic on line because that is always going to be a risk because its a worthwhile target for haxors.
 
Old 02-15-2011, 09:53 AM   #5
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by xcislav View Post
I move extensively to Linux from Windows XP (where there are viruses pretty often).
Would you advise me please what to read or to do - not to fall in viruses, not to repeat the windows experiences?

I just need common sense from any experienced user.
Linux doesn't suffer from "the windows experiences" because it works very differently inside. Period.

No viruses, no registry, no DLL hell, no degrading over time.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 03:21 AM   #6
ffrank
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Distribution: Sidux
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK358 View Post
Linux doesn't suffer from "the windows experiences" because it works very differently inside. Period.

No viruses, no registry, no DLL hell, no degrading over time.
"No viruses"? Citation needed ;-p

Windows XP is indeed much more malware-prone that Linux, but AFAIK, from a tech perspective, a GNU/Linux system isn't less vulnerable than, say, Windows 7.
Windows *is* a lower hanging apple due to the fact that it is still more common for desktop use.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 04:08 AM   #7
rich_c
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Distribution: Mepis; Maemo; openSUSE
Posts: 384
Blog Entries: 74

Rep: Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ffrank View Post
Windows *is* a lower hanging apple due to the fact that it is still more common for desktop use.
A common argument which makes no sense when you consider the percentage of Linux SERVERS on the internet. Servers would have to be a more valuable or even 'prestigious' target than desktops. Which takes us back to Linux IS more secure due to it's inherent design.
 
Old 02-16-2011, 04:10 AM   #8
corp769
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,814

Rep: Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001Reputation: 1001
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_c View Post
A common argument which makes no sense when you consider the percentage of Linux SERVERS on the internet. Servers would have to be a more valuable or even 'prestigious' target than desktops. Which takes us back to Linux IS more secure due to it's inherent design.
+1 to that. Couldn't argue any further...
 
Old 02-17-2011, 03:31 AM   #9
ffrank
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Distribution: Sidux
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_c View Post
A common argument which makes no sense when you consider the percentage of Linux SERVERS on the internet. Servers would have to be a more valuable or even 'prestigious' target than desktops. Which takes us back to Linux IS more secure due to it's inherent design.
I agree that Linux and lots of common server software (Apache etc.) are more secure due to the fact that they're open source, so finding (and eliminating) vulnerabilities is easier (and culturally more rewarding).

The fact that desktops are a more common malware target is not a higher base security IMO, though. Servers run a very limited set of software components with a high level of scrutiny wrt. security. Desktops are commonly a hive of third-party software that opens numerous holes.

I disbelieve that Windows servers are more readily compromised than *NIX servers.
 
Old 02-17-2011, 04:43 AM   #10
rich_c
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Distribution: Mepis; Maemo; openSUSE
Posts: 384
Blog Entries: 74

Rep: Reputation: 81
OK, put it this way. I am an IT professional. The data center I work in has a mix of Windows and Unix/Linux servers. All the Windows servers run anti virus software. None of the Unix or Linux boxes run anti virus software. I am not a sys admin, so this setup has nothing to do with me. It was set up by people that know a hell of a lot more than I do. The kind of data we deal with would be extremely damaging to the company if compromised, so to me that is a strong indication that Windows servers are more readily compromised than Unix/Linux and also that servers are deemed to be a target as well as desktops. If this were not the case then why bother buying expensive licenses to protect the Windows servers?
 
Old 03-04-2011, 06:52 AM   #11
ffrank
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Distribution: Sidux
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
I stand by my opinion. Not running rkhunter or similar protection on UNIX servers is optimistic at best, but often outright negligent.

I believe that the prime reason for buying expensive security software are insurance issues.

Yes, you should be more concerned about your Windows servers. No, the reason is not that *NIX is "somehow superior", except for two possible concerns:
1. Apparently, updating software is a lot less painful, which does indeed make it simpler to protect non-Windows servers.
2. Apparently, Windows is a magnet for poorly written software.
Only the former is a technical issue, and is only indirectly related to security.
There is also no technical reason why someone wouldn't deploy closed-source, poorly written and insecure software on a UNIX server.
 
Old 03-04-2011, 08:25 AM   #12
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,469
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525Reputation: 1525
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by ffrank View Post
I stand by my opinion. Not running rkhunter or similar protection on UNIX servers is optimistic at best, but often outright negligent.

I believe that the prime reason for buying expensive security software are insurance issues.

Yes, you should be more concerned about your Windows servers. No, the reason is not that *NIX is "somehow superior", except for two possible concerns:
1. Apparently, updating software is a lot less painful, which does indeed make it simpler to protect non-Windows servers.
2. Apparently, Windows is a magnet for poorly written software.
Only the former is a technical issue, and is only indirectly related to security.
There is also no technical reason why someone wouldn't deploy closed-source, poorly written and insecure software on a UNIX server.
Maybe you should read 'rkhunter'. If you were admin on either type of OS I am sure that every avenue would be approached to prevent poor performance. 'rootkits' are not a virus but the means for a person(s) to get control of your *NIX box. If safeguards are not in place then you surely deserve to experience unwanted conditions. As admin for any type of OS, one must be sure to provide safeguards to prevent unwarranted situations.

M$ is the largest user base so that is the primary condition for the number of attacks. UNIX systems can be and are generally secure because of knowledgeable managers that want a running secure system. Thus all possible conditions have been performed to allow this or should be done.

As to poorly written closed source, it would be identified at some point in time as something to avoid. So Joe IT admin would not install Poorly_Written_Application.tgz or suffer a pink slip if he/she did not do their job.

You can make all the assumptions but real time situations are what count.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration