Why Linux doesnt need an anti virus - Page 3

I hate backseat moderating, but "dickheads" isn't a family friendly word..

100% agree with you, we need to be neat in our language

I firmly believe that Windows should just abandon "UAC" and just require a password for every admin-run program.

it is snag to me that need to be cleared! I have vista and it really annoy me to click every time. I wish they would do like ubuntu just pop authentication box for password :)

It is far more difficult to attack a Linux system than in Windows.

On the other hand, when it comes to Linux, the user normally has stronger computer knowledge in comparison to Windows users, thus are more aware of virus thread.

Thanks

While it is true that the average Linux user knows more about system security, and computers in general, that's not necessarily the reason that Linux has better security.

My take on it is that Linux is built with security in mind. Windows is built with security as an afterthought.

Linux is open source, and easier for the open source developers of the world (100's of thousands) to find holes, security flaws etc and patch them. Windows needs to rely on their on-staff developers who are limited in numbers and resources. As a for-profit company, they need to be sure that everything comes in on time and on budget. That can only result in one thing: the most important security holes being plugged and the others either put off to a later date or not dealt with at all.

I think it should be obvious that Windows ranks lower in security when the Service Packs alone are the size of most Linux distributions. ;)

linux will eventually need an anti-virus program hopefully after my time

Hi,
please could be one off you be so kind to tell me if is there a software for suse 11.1 to exploit loopholes?.
Thank you be so kind to help me.

Michael

Hi,
please could be one off you be so kind to tell me if is there a software for suse 11.1 to exploit loopholes?.
Thank you be so kind to help me.

Michael

Plenty.

Much of the software used to exploit (Windows) loopholes are linux-based.

Sadly you need a brain (and knowledge) to utilise it.

Sorry to disappoint you.

ok thanks for all

I think Linux doesn't have an anti virus or is highly affected by viruses because people who tend to make a hobby of making viruses find no worth in making one for an OS that least used. But now I guess it's getting a portions of the market.

I think we'll see viruses soon.

I downloaded Clam AV from Ubuntu repo. Its not about fear of getting virus just a precaution. You never know.

I've been using Linux for a long time and noticed that it is a lot harder to exploit loop holes in it, to run an executable it must be Chmoded, to access gain write access to anything out side of your home folder you must be root, and security holes are patched much much faster than on Windows.

:D

Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see!

Some of the points the others have made are very valid, however my advice would be...... be cautious of any software that you utilize over the network.

As linux gains in popularity, it also presents a challenge to the writers of malicious code and their evil intentions!

Dont live in a 'fools paradise', they also have linux in their sights!
Only problem is, there are so many distro's, they dont know where to start...lol!

Regards to all!

yes at any time it is better to cautious.I faced several problem and virus attack previously due to my casualness.so its better to be alert with any program you run

Personally I believe Linux comes with more precautions, like you have to chmod to execute something, and running as root user is almost unheard of.

bcz its all port are close and no hacker can attack on this

bcz its all port are close and no hacker can attack on this

Yeah, sorry but you're completely wrong. All ports are closed on any OS. However Linux has a builtin firewall(netfilter/IPtables), you can use it to stealth your ports, great thing about IPtables is it uses netfilter which is built into the kernel. part of the reason linux doesn't need an AV is you need to be root user to have write acess to anything outside your home folder(unless you change that). Another thing that helps is file permissions, not allowing a file to execute unless given the proper permission through CHMOD(system call, or shell command).

Hi all,

I am a newbie to Linux. I am finding it interesting but i am wondering why Linux is not having any Antivirus or some security tools? wont this pose any security threat when we are accessing Internet?

because it has a great security. and latest patches are available every day so if OS doesn't have any patch then how virus attack on it.

Yeah, sorry but you're completely wrong. All ports are closed on any OS. However Linux has a builtin firewall(netfilter/IPtables), you can use it to stealth your ports, great thing about IPtables is it uses netfilter which is built into the kernel. part of the reason linux doesn't need an AV is you need to be root user to have write acess to anything outside your home folder(unless you change that). Another thing that helps is file permissions, not allowing a file to execute unless given the proper permission through CHMOD(system call, or shell command).

thnak u for tell me.

Since I use Linux. My PC with Window was struck by virus twice in 3 months and my Linux PC has none so far. Hope it stay that way.

This is because most of the viruses are .exe files which are not executable in Linux Operating system. In other words the OS does not understand what the files are.

This is because most of the viruses are .exe files which are not executable in Linux Operating system. In other words the OS does not understand what the files are.

Well exe files are windows binarys, not compiled for linux. There are 4 main reasons linux doesn't need a AV:

1. Linux uses file permissions, you can only execute a file if you have a "+x" permission.
2. A typical linux user only has write access to his/her home folder limiting the virus to a small area that contains no important system components
3. Root users are(by default) the only user that has write access outside its home folder(/root); The root user is only used to make changes to the system, which normal users cant. No one in the right mind ever runs as root to do everyday tasks. A user with sudo privledges can use the "sudo" command to run a single process or command as Root user.
4. Patches, Linux is the most rapidly developed software on earth. Patches come out very rapidly and there are so many contributors that a loop hole will only last a few days

Not too mention there are security addons for linux such as Apparmor, SELinux, and many more which provide "Mandatory Access Control".

Can tell all this in one sentence

"People Love Linux more than Windows"
"If people start hating it then bulk of virus can start their war"

it consider everything as a ordinary file

Hi all,

I am a newbie to Linux. I am finding it interesting but i am wondering why Linux is not having any Antivirus or some security tools? wont this pose any security threat when we are accessing Internet?

unlike windows linux is opensource and so operating systems in many places varies from one distribution to others(eg.Fedora,CentOS,Ubuntu,mandriva) and from with in this distributions all are realeasing new versions in atleast 4 months and one more thing Linux is havig a powerful kernel and everything is open to the end users
here nobody(i mn hackers) find their time wasting to develop a virus for a particular destro, just bcz open community support and in worst they (the user attacked) can easily switch into another distro

Abhilash
<snip>

one of the reason which i now is that, in linux the file didnot have the permission to execute as in windows.

Guys the fact is that the *nix is not secured as it is thougt. Actually users who uses *nix have a bit more knowledge of OS, its structure, its working and its loop holes than the users of Windows. Due to this reason they make secureable *nix.
*nix being secureable is the reason, it is less vulnerable to the malicious attacks.

Linux is far more secure than Windows due to the fundamental differences between the kernel architecture of the two operating systems. Files in Windows have default 'execute' permission, which makes all the files exploitable to all the malwares. on the other hand, files in the Linux have separately definable 'execute' permission of which SElinux part in Linux takes care. This means no viruses in Linux. Linux is prone to only rootkits which can come only if the root installs an infected package.

It's probably a good idea to run AV and a firewall on Linux because they'll run quietly in the background without using up a lot of system resources. Sooner or later the evil-bad-guys are going to start writing viruses and malware for Linux. It's a little like the spare tire on your car; mostly you never think about it but it's nice to have when, suddenly, you need it.

be clear that in linux everything is filesystem including hardwares.
linux does not support any .exe file and it has a very strong inbuilt security features than windows so it never affects with any viruses.
enjoy your linux by learning more

Why linux doesn't need an antivirus?
On Linux, there is built-in protection against such craft. Newly deposited files from your email client or Web browser are not given execute privileges. Cleverly renaming executable files as something else doesn't matter, because Linux and its applications don't depend on file extensions to identify the properties of a file, so they won't mistakenly execute malware as they interact with it.

So Linux is bullet proof?
No. Bulletproof is one of the last stages of drunkenness, not a state of security. Linux users, like users on every operating system, must always be aware of security issues. They must act intelligently to keep their systems safe and secure. They should not run programs with root privileges when they are not required, and they should apply security patches regularly.

Misleading claims and false advertising by virus protection rackets to the contrary, you simply don't need antivirus products to keep your Linux box free of malware.

"There may be a virus loose on the internet..."
-Andy Sudduth of Harvard, 34 minutes after midnight, 03 November 1988 -

The original 'virus', the "Internet Worm", crafted by Cornell student Robert Morris (now an MIT professor), brought the entire Internet to its knees when he launched it on 02 November 1988.

This little freak of digital nature infected Both BSD and SunOs UNIX machines, and led to widespread DDoS issues via vulnerabilities in rsh, rexec, finger, and Sendmail - within a few hours!

Yes, mACROsFOT machines are quite vulnerable, and this goes way back to the days of DOS, with boot sector viruses and ANSI bombs, among other exploits - but UNIX was the first OS to demonstrate its vulnerabilities to malware in epic proportions.

Aside from due diligence, by protecting your assets with things like portsentry, snort, and other IDS and firewalling systems, there are actually several AV products out there for Linux, a few of them I've listed below:

http://www.clamav.net/

http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/linux/linux.asp

http://www.f-prot.com/products/corporate_users/unix/

http://free.avg.com/gb-en/download?prd=afl

the most vulnerable point on a UNIX machine has typically been the SMTP daemon, although BIND is a great place to look if you want to own a box too, since it historically has a vulnerability discovered every six to nine months.

Both Sendmail and BIND are large, monolithic in architecture, and therefore, present a greater potential for bugs.

Daemons such as Postfix, Exim, and Qmail became popular in part as a result of this aspect of Sendmail, and other DNS servers are now popular as well due to these cyclic tendencies for BIND to be found vulnerable.

Other outward looking daemons have shown vulerabilities as well, including sshd, nfsd, and others.

When people say that UNIX systems are impervious to viruses, they're typically referring, ignorantly, to the fact that was mentioned above - mACROsFOT machines are usually targeted, so when you browse to a site with an exploit for a mACROsFOT machine, your browser and UNIX operating system simply doesn't know what to do with it.

But don't believe that UNIX machines have some sort of built-in imperviousness to malware - it's simply a patently false statement.

Glad to see "problem is, there are so many distro's, they dont know where to start."

This truth is so obvious, that serious hardware, software creators, Internet & PC users (not server admins & Unix-crazies) keep away from Linux.

Good to see just one other Linux user with mature insights.

The original problem solver knows little of the topic he claims to know.

1) Software malware protection should be chosen only if it is updated nearly every day, or more often. So avoid Clam AV - the most used AV software in Linux I think (perhaps wrongly). Rootkit & Trojan protection protection is required.

Most times, if you turn on "heuristics", you will get very many false positives. So I avoid vaporware (e.g. Android), porn & pirated software.

2) Firewalls are hardware, firmware and software. Most ISP's (Internet service providers) are using these, with varying effectiveness. It is suggested that software firewall be used, but I'm not sure if that is necessary.

3) Malware is always ahead of any type of anti-malware protection. There is little protection available for identity fraud, etc ... other than education of the end-user.

4) No one single brandname is able to protect a computer from every known malware. It is recommended that one real time protection be used, plus another weekly full scan, off-line, with other anti-malware programs.

5) Multiple regular off-line, off-site, encrypted backups are necessary, for protection for true protection.

6) Multiple operating systems must be available at all times, to access your programs & data, any time, instantly, as soon as malware happens.

7) The most common malware is not evil outsiders, but your own hardware, software and firmware. Incompatiblities with each other (timings, versions, temperatures, corrosion, fatigue, etc) is to be expected e.g. S.M.A.R.T. monitoring your hard disk drive(s).

8) The next most common malware is the operating system itself - which is always betaware, despite the brandname's claim otherwise.

9) Be very explicit about your interests & activities. But do not disclose your true passport, birth-date, etc to any but necessary & trusted authorities. In white Australia, they imprison colored people like me - so naturally, being employed in medical research at the University of NSW (1974), they put me in prison for six years hard labor. I had that silly Chinese "inscrutiblity" & humbleness, so many males got good promotions from my supposed non-cooperation from the so-called "evidence" they so-called found.

Similar medical frauds were conducted at the same university's medical research faculty a few decades later, again on Asian women, not just one Chinese man. But those women escaped prison which would have given career promotions to the white patriarchy that dominates this planet.

Australians are not just racially xenophobic. Professor Clyde Manwell (Zoology, University of Adelaide) and myself were both punished by that university because we were too North American.

Being open internationally about yourself is the only way that the national secret police can avoid the publicity of Amnesty International. Though I don't know if A.I. protected the USA's anti-war "criminals" (Jane Fonda et al).

Often it is recommended that passwords be complex & regularly changed. I personally have several categories: Rubbish-password, Public, Private, Very-private & Ultra-private (not even my Medical Guardian knows it, so in my next medical coma, some of financial stuff will be very messy).

The above comments are NOT opinions, but off-the-top-of-my-head facts. I'm not sure where there is an Internet site or hardcopy answer to the initial question. If ever I medically recover enough, I might properly research & document my facts.