Which anti-virus do you prefer on Linux X86_64?
 

I've been seeking reports about them, and tried dr. web, NOD32, ClamAV, COMODO, F-prot.

If I'm running Samba and have window's clients connecting to them...I run ClamAV weekly just in case.

--C

Idem. I am running ClamAV and Antivir nightly to check all files changed in the last 30 days (not only the ones on the Samba shares).
Antivir is no longer available for Linux so next year I will have to look for a different solution or be satisfied running only ClamAV.

Linux *is* my anti-virus software!

Hi,

ClamAV, not because its actually needed but because of local network policy. I even humour them and have it running as a daemon - probably wouldn't be much fun on a low spec machine though.

Evo2.

Be sure to read this.

Thousands of Linux servers hijacked by Operation Windigo

BS. Lots of websites are vulnerable. Does not mean the underlying OS is vulnerable.

Are you looking for anti-virus software to put on a server that has Windows clients? The answer to that question will determine the advice received. If no, you do not need anti-virus software. If yes, I leave it to those familiar with such software to advise you.

So you don't believe that Linux or software that runs on it has vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malware? Do you ever install security updates to Linux or software that runs on it?

Linux is vulnerable. Just not so vulnerable as Windows.

I do believe Linux is vulnerable. However, there are hardened versions of Linux that are near to impossible to penetrate. And there is no need to hack into Linux, either. Because you can achieve desired result by injecting malicious code to the web site running on secure platform. Your comparison with Windows is completely off line. MS Windows has thousands of security holes. This the very reason why there are over 4 millions of Windows viruses (my information may be outdated, it may be more than 5, 6, 7 millions as of today).
Back to web sites running on Linux. While the underlying OS is secure there are lots of vulnerabilities of PHP code written by incompetent web admins that make these sites insecure. Blaming GNU/Linux for that does not make sense, yet exposes your lack of knowledge on this matter.

Linux not vulnerable? The NSA thinks differently according to this article http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyber...s-surveillance

Considering this is only a rumor you can also check http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-pro...stribution.php
Although the Linux kernel is at #1., this only applies to the vanilla kernel. If you look at the individual distro's the picture is completely different: http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabil...nux-10.04.html. Only 1 which only occurs on Dell Latitude laptops.

So for me, Windows clients are certainly not the only reason to run antivirus checks

If you serve files it doesn't matter at all how secure the underlying OS is (by the way, a properly configured Windows machines is not more insecure than a properly configured Linux machine), checking the served files is the only sane thing to do. I use ClamAV for that.

No, it just means the underlying user is vulnerable.. Be it power user or not..

You're reading a lot into what I said. I haven't said enough for you to assess my level of knowledge. Perhaps you might read my two brief posts again and try to separate your assumptions from what you can plainly read.

Yes, Linux is as vulnerable as anything else.

No, that does not necessarily imply that it needs AV software. Or that AV software will be helpful. Or that AV software won't be harmful. (Same goes for Windows and OSX as it happens.)

Security is a complex problem. Taking action is tempting, but sometimes there is nothing you can reasonably do, and doing nothing is probably better than doing something that doesn't work.

Edit: BTW, for an example of AVs possibly being harmful sometimes, look around for a research paper by Tavis Ormandy called "Sophail".