AVG for Linux Workstation
 

Hi all. I'm rather new at Linux. I recently duel booted my laptop with Red Hat fedora core 6. I installed AVG 7.5 for Linux and the graphical version? When I click "update", it says I don't have permissions. When I installed the rpm file, I had to use the su command to install, and now I am unsure how to change permissions to use the graphical update. The install instructions didn't say anything about the permissions. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Dave

You dont need a virus scanner for Linux.

The operating system architecture is nothing like Windows.

There are not many viruses affecting linux and even if you did get one in an Email or something, the chances of it getting into the operating system and affecting anything, are extremely slim.

That's only partly correct. While there are very few viruses for *nix now we have no idea how long this state will last. Further, if you ever plan to send a received file to a Windows user, it's always good to know that you aren't simply passing it through to them.

When you open the update/GUI utility, does it prompt you for an admin password? If not, try opening it from a terminal as root.

Oh, I understand that part about Linux. I was concerned mainly for email by passing one along. I guess I'm just a little too paranoid from all the issues I've had working with windows having viruses/trojans/worms attack through email.

-Dave

No, it just says "Update process failed.
Reason: Sorry, you do not have permission to execute avgupdate."

Would I change permissions in avgupdate? opening it in terminal as root does work.

Thanks,

-Dave

I suggest setup sudo instead of using su. The utility sudo is safer. Most software updates may have to be run by root if the directory and file does not provide write and execute access to the user. Also SELinux can also provide additional security problems if it is not setup properly.

If you want to use an open-source anti-virus scanner, clamav could be used. Also AIDE (file monitor) and rootkit scanners can be used to increase your security.

ClamAv is a very good(probably the best) virus protection on linux.

I would disagree about sudo being safer than su. Make sure you understand the difference between su and su -(su space dash). The difference is often missed by people. The su - gives you root permissions and path, whereas su just gives you root permissions.

The last two posts are missing the point. The user already has a virus scanner installed.

When you say running it from a root terminal "doesn't work", what do you mean? What particular error message does trying it result in? Just "doesn't work" is not enough information.

Thats totally incorrect.

A virus that is designed to infect a windows O/S at the kernel (ring 0) level cannot affect Linux, and vice-versa.

A virus designed to affect a Windows app, like MS Office, can of course be fed into the app (level 1 ring) layer via interfaces such as Wine.

Your statement is factually incorrect albeit logically possible, its factually wrong!

Nope. It's your reading that's wrong.

I didn't say that a Windows virus could affect a Linux PC. What I said was that if you serve Windows user files, meaning via email as an example, it's worth while checking to see if the file you are passing on is infected. Running Linux doesn't destroy viruses, it merely leaves them unable to run. If you receive an infected file and then pass it to a Windows user the virus will still work.

Agreed. I concur with that!

Very consiencious. Us linux users are like that ;)

We are - let's shake on it :)

hand of fate, I did not miss the point. Linux already has anti-virus scanner in the program manager. Why look somewhere else for different one. Commercial products may include unknown software that may screw up the installation or the program may take control of the computer and the user have to play by its rules.


sudo is safer than su because you do not have to type in root's password. Also sudo can be setup to run certain commands, so it limits the user what settings can be changed or not changed. sudo logs what the user is doing.

None of the anti-virus scanners that are out there are the best. Though something is better than nothing.

lazlow: sudo is deemed to be safer than su. You need to make sure that *you* understand the difference in my view.

sudo facilitates, via configuration files, the assignement of sudo-ers and associated privilages in terms of what can be executed and accessed. sudo-ers is the term given to the list of users for whom access to the sudo suite has been granted by sysadmin.

su does NOT offer this flexibility nor security and thus is NOT safer. Hence therefore you are incorrect and with respect may need to "goolge" around to build up your domain knowledge.

Where did anyone mention looking "somewhere else"? The user already has AVG installed. AVG is already on their computer, ready to be used, not "somewhere else".

Are you trying to spread a myth that all non-open source software is necessarily malware? This is completely untrue!