Linux Antispyware and Antivirus
-I have a windows unit connected to the internet in 30 minutes i surf the web and download a lot of stuff and when i scanned my windows unit for virus and spywares there more 10 trojan, backdoor, cookie, keylogers and other shits! that detected.
-i also surf the web and download a lot of stuff in the internet from my linux unit. and my concern is will i have the same problem regarding virus and spywares like my windows unit. -Does linux require an antivirus and antispyware? |
nope
if you desperatly want to - you could run viruses in wine but that might be more work than worth... you will not get infected on a linux pc as all (or all circulating) viruses are layed out for windows. windows apps don't run under linux (nativly). same thing for spyware: these apps are windows executables or something similar the only time you should watch out is when you pass files on to others which you got from some windows pc - either your own or somebody elses. |
As far as Linux goes, viruses and spyware are generally considered a non-issue. This is more because of a good security model and modular design than the lack of Linux malware in general.
Just use common sense...
The mechanisms viruses and malware require to function simply don't exist under Linux unless you intentionally put them there. |
-ok thats good news. so viruses and spywares are not an issue in linux. then why there are some linux antivirus built.
what are the mechanisms viruses and malwares require to function. |
Well, you have antivirus in Linux because lots of Linux systems are used as servers for other windows machines, so you need an antivirus to make sure that your network system is trustable.
|
you also run anti spam and anti virus on mail servers, file servers, proxy servers - lagrly these are run on linux systems
|
Quote:
Quote:
as a practical (and not so general) *example*, the NoScript firefox extension has been recommended by many experts, as it significantly lowers the potential for disaster while surfing the web... Quote:
but security isn't about only doing required stuff, it's about adding layers - so if you feel that your linux box will be much safer by having anti-virus/spyware then by all means go ahead and run them... as a bonus, you'll have a head-start if viruses/malware for desktop linux ever get to the point where we all need to start seriously considering all the anti-whatever software... Quote:
there have been many linux boxes infected and/or taken-down by viruses/worms/etc in the past... this is in itself proof that these things DO happen - and we should always be prepared for them... it's true that there are currently no linux viruses/worms running around in the wild, but don't let that give you a false feeling of security... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
if on the other hand you are referring to the low incidence rate of these things on linux, i would argue that it's a little of both (good design but also lack of malware)... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I meant that one would have to intentionally go against one of the "common sense" practices to allow such a security breach to occur. (Though, it's certainly also possible through user ignorance or privelege escalation.) In hindsight, this could probably have been worded better. What seems purposeful to me may very well be accidental to a newbie. As long as programs run with minimum priveleges, then any successful attacks on those programs will yield minimum damage; you might lose parts of your home directory, but the system itself will remain intact and running. By today's virus standards of massive destruction and system failures, this is hardly even a scratch. About that privelege escalation point: if all userspace programs (services, etc.) are run as low-priveleged users, then the only potential for such a disastrous exploit is at the kernel level... and such holes are incredibly rare (I can't remember the last time I heard of a potential root-privelege exploit for the Linux kernel, let alone one that could be performed remotely). :twocents: Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Quote:
|
Quote:
windows viruses and windows executable will not affect linux systems - simply because they are not designed to run on linux but on windows - hence a lot of people use wine or a vm to run apps designed for windows. considering that the member is asking if his linux system is safe when being concerned after checking his windows client, the answers provided are all perfectly valid! I do agree however that there are a lot of exploits for linux services. though if one keeps software up to date and does not install root-kits danger of that nature is not all to close (at least not for simple desktop users) network and server admins do have more to do here (i agree again), but, keeping software up to date and running a well setup firewall and intrusion detection systems even here does a pretty good job of keeping one closer to the safe side as running similar services on windows servers. the availability of viruses and tojans for windows is a lot higher and anything else. |
Quote:
Quote:
i'm sure you'll agree that the incidence of locally-exploitable privilage escalation vulnerabilities has been MUCH higher than remote ones... of course i'm not basing myself on raw numbers, i'm just using vague recollection... Quote:
|
Quote:
but my point still remains - linux is not immune to things like viruses, malware, worms, etc. which is what i was referring to... this is a common and growing misconception which i have been observing in many people when they talk to potential newcomers about linux's benefits... Quote:
Quote:
i, on the other hand, was assuming he was asking about *equivalent* threats on his linux box - as is typical of these oh-so-common anti-virus/spyware threads... i made the (perhaps wrong) assumption that it's common knowledge that windows-specific malware will only run on windows (unless of course you use wine, yada yada yada)... Quote:
Quote:
what you can do is use a rootkit scanner to see if anyone has "been so kind" to you lately: http://www.rootkit.nl/ http://www.chkrootkit.org/ NOTE: i'm posting this rootkit stuff for any newbies reading this... Quote:
Quote:
the controversy begins when people start coming-up with reasons for this... on one side you'll have those that say it's because linux is more secure... on the other side you'll have those that say it's because linux is a smaller target (referring to the desktop)... like i said before, i personally feel it's a little of both - but whatever - it's beside the point... |
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, if all else fails, all you need is a boot disk. :) Unless you're one of the few that encrypts their hard drives, physical access is all anyone needs with your typical computer system. It all comes down to personal preference; find your own reason to use what you want. Regardless of how much more secure/stable a modular OS structure is compared to a monolithic one, it's always possible to shoot yourself in the foot. There's a favorite C vs. C++ quote of mine (shamelessly copied from fortune) that could easily be applied here if you replace the languages with operating systems: Code:
C makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that |
Quote:
Quote:
hehe... j/k... Quote:
Code:
Windows makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 AM. |