Ubuntu Anti-virus
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
From: Earth
you dont need it.
The correct answer is "it depends".
Sure, if you're using Linux as a workstation then by all means forget the anti-virus.
But if you're using the Linux box as a server (e.g. file server, email server, whatever) that will be providing services to Windows machines, then you do need anti-virus ... as a filtering mechanism.
There is of course, an exception to the first paragraph about workstation use... and that is the wonders of rootkits. But you'll need something more specific than an AV program to scan for those.
Finally, none of the above means Linux has some magic invulnerability cloak. It does not. There are many ways to exploit a Linux machine, but none of them use what would traditionally be recognised as a virus.
Last edited by mixture; 11th October 2013 at 10:57.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
From: 39N 77W
Perhaps I should have put forth a more-general question. I didn't want to limit answers to just anti-virus software.
I hereby expand the question to cover any and all sorts of protection for Linux like Ubuntu / Mint / etc.
Thanks for the answers so far.
I understand that OS X, though ultimately based on UNIX, is now the subject of anti-virus (or anti-nasties) software.
seacue
I hereby expand the question to cover any and all sorts of protection for Linux like Ubuntu / Mint / etc.
Thanks for the answers so far.
I understand that OS X, though ultimately based on UNIX, is now the subject of anti-virus (or anti-nasties) software.
seacue
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
From: Earth
I understand that OS X, though ultimately based on UNIX, is now the subject of anti-virus (or anti-nasties) software.
With its increased adoption, OS X is of course an increasing target for the unscrupulous of this world.
The exploits tend to rely on vulnerabilities in third party software (e.g. Flash, Java etc). So the first part of the defence is to make sure all third party software (and indeed OS X itself) is always kept up to date on a regular basis.
Second part of the defence is to create an additional user on OS X, of "Standard" type, and use that for your day-to-day computing. Unlike "Admin" type users, "Standard" users have no "sudo" rights and therefore cannot elevate themselves to admin status no matter how much they try. For software installation etc, you can do that as "Standard" suer, but when the system prompts you, you'll have to enter both username and password to run the installer as.
Last edited by mixture; 13th October 2013 at 16:56.
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 2
From: have I forgotten or am I lost?
in a unix network you can log on to other machines across a network and switch users but you can only have full super user (root) permissions on the machine you are physically on. you cant be super user on a remote machine.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
From: Earth
in a unix network you can log on to other machines across a network and switch users but you can only have full super user (root) permissions on the machine you are physically on. you cant be super user on a remote machine.
I occasionally have reason to sit in a warm quiet room in front of the television and manage servers located in noisy server rooms many miles away.
I can login to the servers remotely, I can escalate to full root privileges in a matter of a few keystrokes. All using the OS's built-in tools.....
$ sudo su -
#whoami
root
#
Outside of the OS's built-in tools, I can also rebuild a server from scratch remotely, but that's another story.

If I were to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you're confusing yourself with "single user mode", i.e. where the network is disconnected ? (Although there are ways around that as per my second paragraph)
Last edited by mixture; 14th October 2013 at 09:42.




