livesoca Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hey All, Can anyone recommend me FREE, good, reliable antivirus application for Linux? Will be using Fedora Core 1 or Core 2 Test. Thanks, LIVESOCA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjordan2001 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 You don't need one, unless you're going to run a mailserver and just want to scan incoming mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[ucw]prophet Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Panda Antivirus for Linux http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/linux/linux.asp F-Prot for Linux http://www.f-prot.com/download/home_user/d...ad_fplinux.html Keep in mind that these aren't GUI based applications. They're command line based, but work very well. From what else I've seen, updating virus definitions is a manual process, but you can schedule a cron job to auto-update them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livesoca Posted April 7, 2004 Author Share Posted April 7, 2004 You don't need one, unless you're going to run a mailserver and just want to scan incoming mail. Let's say I will be storing files on my linux machine. I'd still like to have an AV that scans everything like in Windows. Don't they have those, or in Linux they don't cause any troupble? LIVESOCA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 AVG has anti-virus for Linux, and I think it is free. F-prot does too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaredVolkl Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Right now Linux doesn't need much in the area of virus protection because no one is writing viruses for Linux. Virus writers like to see their work in action. Mathematically that equates to writing viruses for Windows. This is not to say that anti-virus is totally pointless for Linux. If you feel you need it, by all means, get it. But I won't start worrying about it for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjordan2001 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Let's say I will be storing files on my linux machine. I'd still like to have an AV that scans everything like in Windows.Don't they have those, or in Linux they don't cause any troupble? LIVESOCA Well, there aren't all that many viruses for Linux really. Only thing you need to keep on top of is security holes in applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomn Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 ...but if you ever do need this for a mail server, check out Clam AV too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Right now Linux doesn't need much in the area of virus protection because no one is writing viruses for Linux. Virus writers like to see their work in action. Mathematically that equates to writing viruses for Windows. This is not to say that anti-virus is totally pointless for Linux. If you feel you need it, by all means, get it. But I won't start worrying about it for a long time. Let's not be too sure about this. By the time Longhorn is released, more people and business will turn to Linux and they may create enough attention for virus writers to write viruses that sabotage Linux systems. I even predict a 10% loss in Microsoft's market share within a couple of years because of licensing problems and such nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimshady89 Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 I agree everything that is either good or free or both come to an end eventually Lesson to be learned : Evil always wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrStaticVoid Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 By its very nature, Linux would be very hard to write viruses for. Linux is a true user-based OS. If a virus was to get in, it would only be able to affect the files that it has appropriate permissions on. Viruses generally attack the system files, but a Linux virus couldn't touch it. The biggest threat I could see is a virus removing the contents of my home directory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fukachu Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 that is unless ofcourse the user is silly enough to run themselves in root all the time, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted April 8, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 8, 2004 Agreed, except in the case of priveledge escalation flaws. There are several reasons that it is tough to have a virus in Linux: Variety: For example, there are many email clients available for Linux, and not a single one of them has to be installed. I may use pine, another use mutt, or kmail, or mozilla mail, or ximian evolution. A virus could work on a flaw in one program, but not likely in another. Same thing applies to browsers, messenger clients, etc. Email Attachments: in Linux, these are not executeable. You have to detatch and chmod them to execute permissions. No automatic spreading - still stupid users may do this, but less frequently. User Levels: good users don't run in root. A regular virus cannot modify the system. It takes a virus that uses an elevation of priveledge exploit to do any real damage, even in the event of a stupid user that does the right thing (and doesn't log in as root). Market Share: Linux does have the advantage of not being a 95% market share OS. Having a nearly homogenous OS world-wide is like having a forest made of dead, dry saplings. Can you say "kindling"? ;) Users: I have to admit that much of the strength of Linux is in the users. We educate ourselves about Linux. We keep up with our patches (nightly for some of us!), and we know how to use the basic tools to check our system. As more and more inexperienced people install Linux, there will be more holes left open that should not be. More people who run as root because they hate to type a password to change their video driver. Before you can just say that "Linux is always more secure than Windows", think about a world where every parent and grandparent ran Lindows (as root! :o). Is that more secure than Windows currently is? Not likely. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. But mostly for the freedoms and the learning I have done. The security is best defined by the admin, not the OS. (hope this wasn't too off-topic) :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaKeY Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Great post Mr. Jensen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Great post Mr. Jensen. Agreed. I believe that it is the users of linux that make it safer for the most part. You have to know a little bit about computers and how to use them to use linux. Most virus's for pcs are spread by inexperienced or ignorant windows users. If you know what you are doing in windows you should theoretically never get a virus. however in the instance where a virus finds a hole in windows it can get through even the best users and infect the computer. however as stated by markjensen in linux a virus that somehow slips by the user shouldn't be able to hurt the system at all if the user knows what he is doing because of permission system in linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitjel Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 AV software for linux? "We don't need no stinkin AV software for linux!" :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts