You're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand why we keep telling new users that it is useless to use an antivirus on Linux. For people with computer knowledge, sure. However more widespread Linux adoption will mean more casual users will start using it. Most of them don't have the "common sense" that is often mentioned ; these users will eventually fall for scams that tell them to run programs attached in emails or random bash scripts from the internet. The possibility is small, but it's not zero, so why not protect against it?
Because snake oil is not helping our a substitute.
Security is a process, not a solution.
Security is a process, not a solution.
Well put!
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
The problem with AV s/w in my experience, is that they do not work very well, and hinder the system’s functioning, because they provide duplicate behaviour of existing solutions and compete with them directly.
In one instance I discovered McAfee to disable write access to /etc/{passwd,shadow,group} effectively disabling a user to change their password. While SELinux will properly handle that by limiting processes, instead of creating a process that would make sure those files aren’t modified by anyone.
People need to understand Linux comes pre-equipped with all the necessary tools and bolts to protect their systems. They just don’t all live in the same GUI, because of the real complexity involved with malware…
You might be legitimately annoyed by the amount of free antivirus software on Windows that don't offer good protection, on top of being filled with ads. But I don't agree that scanning for malicious files and preventing dangerous commands (regardless of how good the implementation is) can be labelled as snake oil.
Same thing happened on macOS. We used to say it’s immune because everything was written only for Windows. That stopped being true a long time ago and the majority of web servers have been running Linux for a decade. Doesn’t seem so crazy to me that someone would want to regularly scan their Linux boxes for bad code.
You should protect against it, but antiviruses are not the answer. It's more efficient to prevent breaches by building good security into software by design (and keeping your system up to date) than to play an endless game of catch-up enumerating pieces of malware after they're already circulating.
Windows tried this approach and it turned into a mess, antivirus companies turned into villains themselves and it still didn't fix the underlying problems. Eventually they came around to actually fixing security problems, and keeping Windows up to date, and offering a curated source of apps and so on.
You can still use scanning on Linux, but apply it efficiently on entry points, like attachments in your email client or your Downloads dir. Don't run a scanner all the time on all your processes and files, that's a gross waste of resources.
It also makes no sense for a properly secured modern system. Take for example Android, where a userspace antivirus can't work because userspace processes are isolated from each other, and a system level antivirus cannot be trusted because it needs to download signatures externally and can (and probably will) be a breach of privacy.
I basically agree with all the points you are making. Only scan downloads, email attachments and whatnot. Don't try to play cat and mouse with sophisticated malware because that's a waste of resources. I don't think software like this exists?
Perhaps SELinux on desktop is the way to go as other posts are suggesting, although I heard that it has some usability problems and can break some programs.
Schrödinger's Linux fanbase
Linux is so much better and easy to use for casual users. But in order to use it, you have to understand terminal, bash scripting, understand permissions, understand the difference between various flavors, etc