You are Here:
Linux Lite 7.0 Final Released - See Release Announcement Section



Antivirus needed?

Author (Read 5347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Antivirus needed?
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2017, 05:30:42 PM »
 

crazysquirrel

  • New to Forums
  • *
  • 15
    Posts
  • Reputation: 0
  • Linux Lite Member
    • View Profile

  • CPU: core2duo 1.8ghz

  • MEMORY: 2Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: gt9400
Sophos was rated higher than Eset but it may only be an on demand type. They claims it works all the time but I do not see it working.

For manual scans, Sophos. For background, use Eset if it has a gui and works in the background. Sophos is command line ONLY.
Wife made me afraid of squirrels. She said I was a NUT? Go figure...
 

Re: Antivirus needed?
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2017, 06:31:00 AM »
 

m654321

  • Gold Level Poster
  • *******
  • 893
    Posts
  • Reputation: 86
  • Linux Lite Member, 'Advocate' & Donator
    • View Profile

  • CPU: Intel Pentium [email protected] (2cores) on an Asus X71Q

  • MEMORY: 4Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: Intel GM45 Express Chipset

  • Kernel: 4.x
I've been using the proprietry ESET antivirus for Linux, since 2014, on almost all setups (see signature). I also use the ESET for Windows version on my dualboot setup.

How useful is it? That's a good question...

What I find it is good for, is promptly alerting me about risky websites while surfing the net, including potentially unsafe downloads - it seems to do it's job there. Apparently, all AV software wont detect malware that comes associated with apps, which I think is the majority of malware on a PC.

Why did I start using ESET?  Earlier, back in 2014/15, I experienced a malware attack on LL (which I reported on the LL forum) in a dualboot setup with Win8.1.  Since then I use ESET for both Linux & Windows OS. Also, I'd imagine if most servers worldwide are based on Unix, and therefore are potential targets for malware or hacking, then it follows that Linux (descended from Unix) might be vulnerable to..? However, some argue that buying AVs is a waste of money and is merely a tickbox exercise and rokytnji in the previous post seems to express a similar view. 

Since installing ESET, it hasn't detected any malware on any of our setups (including Windows OS) - there are two opposing interpretations for that..

(1) malware is getting through and the AV is just not detecting it
(2) no malware getting through, hence no detection

However, there are just one or two comments I'd like to add, quoting 'quidsup'.  Quidsup (a.k.a. Ian) has a linux channel on YouTube. His opinions are respected by a wide audience - his professional daytime job is as a network security analyst so he is well placed to express a viewpoint on security in either Linux or Windows OS.

His opinion is that AVs are only around 20% efficient, at best, as most malware comes with apps, e.g. adobe flashplayer, java, etc., and this app-associated malware is undetectable by AVs.  In one of his videos he said that Linux presents a brick wall to viruses, and so there was no point having an AV to guard a brick wall - a waste of time in his opinion.

Virustotal and urlquery are useful malware detectors (they are free), which were recommended in one of Quidsup's videos - it's amazing what urlquery might pick up, even on seemingly 'safe sites' - a scan of my son's school website picked up malware...  You can find these scanners at the following links :

https://www.virustotal.com/
http://urlquery.net/

Sorry, I haven't really answered your question though hopefully the above two links might be useful...

Cheers
Mike
   
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 01:44:26 AM by m654321 »
64bit OS (32-bit on Samsung netbook) installed in Legacy mode on MBR-formatted SSDs (except pi which uses a micro SDHC card):
2017 - Raspberry pi 3B (4cores) ~ [email protected] - LibreElec, used for upgrading our Samsung TV (excellent for the task)  
2012 - Lenovo G580 2689 (2cores; 4threads] ~ [email protected] - LL3.8/Win8.1 dual-boot (LL working smoothly)
2011 - Samsung NP-N145 Plus (1core; 2threads) ~ Intel Atom [email protected] - LL 3.8 32-bit (64-bit too 'laggy')
2008 - Asus X71Q (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6/Win8.1 dual-boot, LL works fine with kernel 4.15
2007 - Dell Latitude D630 (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6, works well with kernel 4.4; 4.15 doesn't work
 

Re: Antivirus needed?
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2017, 12:00:56 AM »
 

rokytnji

  • Friganeer
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • **********
  • 1255
    Posts
  • Reputation: 139
    • View Profile

  • CPU: Intel Core2 Duo U9600

  • MEMORY: 4Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: Intel Mobile 4
My personal opinion from your description of usage.

No. Not needed.

Viruses and such are usually .exe files and linux does not run them. My wife is a life time Windows user and I scan anything I share with her using

https://www.eset.com/us/home/online-scanner/

to scan whatever is on the usb drive the files I will share with her.

A live cd is also offered that will do the job if sharing files. ClamAV and others are just a waste of space and effort for me.

https://www.eset.com/int/support/sysrescue/

Either one of the above will suit your needs if you change your mind and put questionable files to share on usb with a Windows user.
I have never infected my wifes work windows gear with malware.

Also. I am the best anti-virus by my computer usage and browsing habits. The space between my shoulders handle that job quite nicely.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 12:04:12 AM by rokytnji »
LL 3.6,2.8
Dell XT2 > Touchscreen Laptop
Dell 755 > Desktop
Acer 150 > Desktop
I am who I am. Your approval is not needed.
 

Antivirus needed?
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2017, 10:23:36 PM »
 

JesusLinux

  • New to Forums
  • *
  • 43
    Posts
  • Reputation: 1
  • Linux Lite Member
    • View Profile

  • CPU: Mobile Technology IntelŪ PentiumŪ Dual-Core 2310, (1.46 GHz)

  • MEMORY: 2Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: Adapter IntelŪ GMA X3100 (up to 256MB shared)
Hi
I researched a bit on the web and some articles say an AV isn't needed on Linux based OS!
Only exception is if you share files (that might be infected) with Windows OS machines.

Well I'm using an old laptop that was destined to never be used again until I discovered LL and decided to run on it for it's low
system requirements.
I intend to use it for net browsing e media entertainment to carry to work etc, I don't intend to share files with other machines but I download a lot o stuff mainly movies/series/music and so on...

Was wondering what you guys think.
Thanks
 

 

-->
X Close Ad

Linux Lite 7.0 Final Released - See Release Announcement Section