Hi Gentooers,
Is there any reason to use clamav in an Linux-only, little home network ? It seems to me it makes only sense while running a Linux mail or SMB server with Win clients... It is right ?
Has anyone ever had problem with viruses on Linux, and if yes what would be the best solution to adopt ?
Just have the impression my weekly clamscans are very time- and resource-consuming, maybe I could avoid it.
Why running clamav ?
Message
- Q-collective
- Advocate
- Posts: 2077
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:21 pm
Re: Why running clamav ?
Heymaigret wrote:Hi Gentooers
Yes, that's rightIt seems to me it makes only sense while running a Linux mail or SMB server with Win clients... It is right ?
There are no problems, because there are no Linux viruses.Has anyone ever had problem with viruses on Linux, and if yes what would be the best solution to adopt ?
Sure, no reason for installing it at all.Just have the impression my weekly clamscans are very time- and resource-consuming, maybe I could avoid it.
- metalifloyd
- n00b
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:48 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Contact:
Actually there are viruses for Linux. They just aren't nearly as common and are generally harder to install. I've been running Linux exclusively for many years and have never run into any virus problems (That I know of 
). Ohh and here is the obligatory reference link...
http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Linux.htm
). Ohh and here is the obligatory reference link...http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Linux.htm
- Q-collective
- Advocate
- Posts: 2077
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:21 pm
These viruses only work in laboratory conditions, they don't exist in 'the wild'.metalifloyd wrote:Actually there are viruses for Linux. They just aren't nearly as common and are generally harder to install. I've been running Linux exclusively for many years and have never run into any virus problems (That I know of
http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Linux.htm
How about the trojan that was infecting an Asian version of Firefox (can't remember the nationality, sorry)?Q-collective wrote:These viruses only work in laboratory conditions, they don't exist in 'the wild'.metalifloyd wrote:Actually there are viruses for Linux. They just aren't nearly as common and are generally harder to install. I've been running Linux exclusively for many years and have never run into any virus problems (That I know of
http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Linux.htm
- Q-collective
- Advocate
- Posts: 2077
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:21 pm
A version of Firefox distributed on an unofficial site not associated in any way with Mozilla. It was infected with a virus that was three years old, and had never been seen in the wild. Somehow, I don't think it was an accident. It seems far more likely that it was deliberately infected.quex wrote:How about the trojan that was infecting an Asian version of Firefox (can't remember the nationality, sorry)?
- CorpseOfMystic
- Apprentice
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:43 pm
How about another 3294? Because Symantech lists 3295 Linux viruses in the wild.Q-collective wrote:Well, that would actually be a first real life example, so my point still stands. I'll reject it if you can find another 10.quex wrote:How about the trojan that was infecting an Asian version of Firefox (can't remember the nationality, sorry)?
Edit: There being nearly 3300 Linux viruses does not mean you necessarily need to use clamav for your own desktop. If you stick to using portage or other package management for other distributions there shouldn't be a problem. They provide features like hash checking or digital signing that ensure the program has not been modified.
Q-collective wrote: There are no problems, because there are no Linux viruses.
Yes, and there are more for sure. The fact that linux is inherently more secure, does not mean that it is invulnerable at all. There are hackers that hack into linux/unix/bsd machines, why do you think that this work cant be automated to be done by a bot, a worm or whatever other lovely digital being?CorpseOfMystic wrote: How about another 3294? Because Symantech lists 3295 Linux viruses in the wild.
Linux has a more secure architecture, but all the days are discovered new buffer overflows in many programs, famous are sendmail and mozilla, and zlib, and many more
Are you sure you are indestructible now?I am convinced that there have been more issues with viruses in linux than we all think (of course nothing compare to windows), the nice part is that, if a user is attacked, usually is only the user's problem, while the rest of the system remains invulnerable. Most times he even will not notice, and if the virus is installed into his account, it can virtually use the box as a launching point to the net.
So, yes, there is a reason to have an av installed, because that way you avoid to contribute to the virus propagation, but I preffer a good firewall though.Q-collective wrote: Sure, no reason for installing it at all.
As I said before, you can still receive malicious code in the user account, that will not affect you system wide, but can be launched from your box to the net. If you feel no solidarity for the rest of the net, then let your box be a nest for little spawns. If you do, set a firewall, there is no need for an av in a domestic net if you can configure a good firewall and you keep your system up to date with the security updates.CorpseOfMystic wrote: Edit: There being nearly 3300 Linux viruses does not mean you necessarily need to use clamav for your own desktop. If you stick to using portage or other package management for other distributions there shouldn't be a problem. They provide features like hash checking or digital signing that ensure the program has not been modified.
EDIT: I forgot one of my favourite things: some people (some=thousands) still operates in home nets with root priviledges all the time w/o any protection. What makes that linux different of windows in that case? The answer is: only one thing, that it is less popular. More popularity and more virus will come with the time, when all the win-lamers come to linux one day.
Old linuxers are too busy for such annoyances, but while linux become easier to use and more popular, the winlamerish troops are coming towards us, and one day there will be such amount of lamers in the linux world that linux viruses will become a daily issue.
- Q-collective
- Advocate
- Posts: 2077
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:21 pm
Hmm, odd, according to this there are 'only' 105 viruses, and it doesn say that are lab experiments or "wild" ones.CorpseOfMystic wrote:How about another 3294? Because Symantech lists 3295 Linux viruses in the wild.Q-collective wrote:Well, that would actually be a first real life example, so my point still stands. I'll reject it if you can find another 10.quex wrote:How about the trojan that was infecting an Asian version of Firefox (can't remember the nationality, sorry)?
Edit: There being nearly 3300 Linux viruses does not mean you necessarily need to use clamav for your own desktop. If you stick to using portage or other package management for other distributions there shouldn't be a problem. They provide features like hash checking or digital signing that ensure the program has not been modified.
Please, if you quote virus stats, use the stats from the program discussed, Symantec doesn even run on Linux.
- CorpseOfMystic
- Apprentice
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:43 pm
Symantec doesn't run on anything. Symantec is not a product, its a company. A company who happens to keep a highly respected and complete virus database. Somehow I doubt the any claim that Symantec maintains fake databases for the purpose of subverting Linux just because its flagship antivirus product does not run on it (especially considering that the product supports ICAP for scanning Linux installations from Windows, a service their customers certainly need).Q-collective wrote:Hmm, odd, according to this there are 'only' 105 viruses, and it doesn say that are lab experiments or "wild" ones.
Please, if you quote virus stats, use the stats from the program discussed, Symantec doesn even run on Linux.
I would trust much more the Symantec database than the Clamav one. No offense intended, but Symantec is much older. Anyway, that is a search with the keyword "linux", and not all the linux viruses. Not all the win/dos viruses have the string "win" in their names, and not all the linux viruses are cataloged with the "linux" string in their names.Q-collective wrote: Hmm, odd, according to this there are 'only' 105 viruses, and it doesn say that are lab experiments or "wild" ones.
We were clarifying a question about numbers that we consider false. Read the post title, the question is if we need security to prevent virus attacks in linux. We are argumenting. And as argument, that is a valid number.Q-collective wrote: Please, if you quote virus stats, use the stats from the program discussed
As stated avove, Symantec doesn't run in anything but in moneyQ-collective wrote: Symantec doesn even run on Linux.
But that is not the question, "Symantec doesn even run on Linux." is not a valid excuse for two simple reasons: there is not a separated internet for linux machines and windows machines, and, second, Symantec products can scan linux installations from a windows machine, so, what do you say????? I think that we have no reason at all not to trust the Symantec information about the number of known linux viruses.