[SOLVED] Virus protection not necessary in Linux. Fact or Myth??!???

[hansdevr]

Some months ago I finally made the switch from Windows (XP Pro) to Kubuntu. One reason (though not the most important!) was that a LOT of people told me that antiviral software was not found on Linux systems. Simply not necessary, I was told.

Of course I did install a firewall (Firestarter) on my brand new PC (why isn't one provided with the standard installation of Kubuntu?), but I never bothered to check for the existence of antiviral software.

Question #1: see topic title.
Question #2: see text. Why doesn't a firewall come standard with (K)ubuntu?

[Princey]

Re: Virus protection not necessary in Linux. Fact or Myth??!

To answer your questions, I'll first answer #2 then #1 seeing number two is pretty straight forward.

All Linux distributions, Kubuntu/Ubuntu included DOES ship with a firewall. It is called IPTables. What you don't see by default in Kubuntu is the frontend to control it. That's where the likes of Firestarter among many others come into play. So to say it doesn't ship with one, is somewhat misleading. I'd say you were misinformed.

Why do you need an anti-virus? If you're sharing information with Windows users especially mail or you have a Windows partition or machine on your network, then sure, you need an anti-virus to avert you unintentionally spread infected files to others. But the infection itself can't harm you as they were written for Windows.

There's a lot of talk as to why virii writers don't target Linux. Besides Windows having the lion's share of desktop useage across the world, both operating systems function way differently. Linux, like Unix, uses a completely different method, that of a modular approach to it's file system where everything is separated. By default, even if I download an executeable script on my linux machine, I must explicitly give it permission through the input of a password for it to run. Even a *.deb or *.rpm will ask for elevated priviledges to run. You would feel suspicious if a simple email attachment gave such warning. We all know in the Windows world, you'd most likely not get a prompt if you ran something pre-Vista.

There are indeed virii for Linux. As to how much, I don't know but that which I do know is that the number is not just minute, but most of them are old. Part of that reason is due to how userspace is separated from the kernel of the system. If my account gets corrupted, it doesn't affect Jane's or Mary's if they share the same computer; meaning, YOU DO NOT HAVE ROOT PRIVILEDGES BY DEFAULT.

Of course, user error can undermine such strong measures that are inherent with all GNU Linux distributions. It is why you'll read all over that you don't need an antivirus for Linux, because, except if running a mail gateway, it is way harder to write, infect and propagate a Linux virus.

Lastly, while some look at the myriad of distributions as a weakness in the *.nix land, it's a huge plus. Even if we have basically debian vs rpm vs slackware based distributions, all incorporate slightly different architectures enough to frustrate the malware writers. It is the same reason why a vulnerability in Firefox doesn't affect Internet Explorer or vice versa.

I hope I made sense 

[The Liquidator]

Re: Virus protection not necessary in Linux. Fact or Myth??!

On a default jaunty installation I think that ufw (uncomplicated firewall) is installed by default but needs activating. However, a default install should be configured with only the necessary ports open. Try doing a test at the shields up website

https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

You should find that you are already set up in full stealth mode. However, feel free to use a firewall if it gives you added confidence. One good gui-enabled one is guarddog. Bear in mind, however, that in configuring it you enable services rather than (like say zone alarm) granting access to programs.

Viruses - to gain access to your system, a virus would have to have to be able to log in as root. That would not be very easy I would suggest for the program to do all of its own, so you would have to actually download it, and run it, supplying the root password to begin with. Again, it's a personal choice, but I have clamav installed on my machine (it's available in the repositories) or you can get avg for linux from grisofts website. However, I only really use it to scan documents I have received from or wish to send out by email.

BTW I second Princey's comments

[stimpyjcat]

Re: Virus protection not necessary in Linux. Fact or Myth??!

EDIT: was too late posting the answer xD

theres a common practice from *nix users that is to NEVER execute a piece of code that you found in the ground in contrast to the things that most windows users do (always use programs from trusted or known sources)

users big mistakes apart, vulnerabilities are known almost instantly when they are found and fixes are distributed for all the community
m$ dont care to fix critical errors in the system and in the latest versions, m$ only cares to fix DRM related issues


firewall? well, all the gnu/linux come with iptables that is enough with the default rules (firestarter is like a frontend of it and other programs)

common user firewalls are often used to stop worms that only works on windows systems (because they use flaws never fixed on nt systems) and theres no need for them in linux

professional firewals... are hardware firewalls, never soft


ps: if you want, you can get antivirus for linux (like avast) to scan things like mail attachs, so you dont forward an infected one to a windows user, but thats all the use that you can give to it

[hansdevr]

Re: Virus protection not necessary in Linux. Fact or Myth??!

Thanks to all posters! Very enlightening!! I guess I will indeed install a virus scanner just for outgoing mails. Wouldn't want to be called a-social....