98
Antivirus recomendations
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
98 points (92.2% liked)
Linux
48721 readers
971 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand why we keep telling new users that it is useless to use an antivirus on Linux. For people with computer knowledge, sure. However more widespread Linux adoption will mean more casual users will start using it. Most of them don't have the "common sense" that is often mentioned ; these users will eventually fall for scams that tell them to run programs attached in emails or random bash scripts from the internet. The possibility is small, but it's not zero, so why not protect against it?
Because snake oil is not helping, or a working substitute.
Security is a process, not a solution.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
The problem with AV s/w in my experience, is that they do not work very well, and hinder the system’s functioning, because they provide duplicate behaviour of existing solutions and compete with them directly.
In one instance I discovered McAfee to disable write access to /etc/{passwd,shadow,group} effectively disabling a user to change their password. While SELinux will properly handle that by limiting processes, instead of creating a process that would make sure those files aren’t modified by anyone.
People need to understand Linux comes pre-equipped with all the necessary tools and bolts to protect their systems. They just don’t all live in the same GUI, because of the real complexity involved with malware…
Well put!
You might be legitimately annoyed by the amount of free antivirus software on Windows that don't offer good protection, on top of being filled with ads. But I don't agree that scanning for malicious files and preventing dangerous commands (regardless of how good the implementation is) can be labelled as snake oil.
As Linux gets more popular, malware will target Linux, it's just a matter of time. So right now it's not a big problem, but hopefully Linux gets popular enough that it happens.
You could say the same about macOS, but now that gets targeted, and Linux has about the same amount of reported userbase as macOS now. So if Linux continues to gain traction, I expect it to follow macOS in becoming a target for malware. Maybe it'll take longer because of the fragmentation, but I think we'll get there.
Take your pick.
Here's one example of a privilege escalation
https://security.berkeley.edu/news/macos-ipados-and-ios-local-privilege-escalation-vulnerability-cve-2021-30807
And here's a little more detail about it, complete with links:
https://www.offsec.com/offsec/macos-preferences-priv-escalation/
This is probably also a zero day because Apple acknowledged that it was in use in the wild at the time (first link).
Not all. HVNC, for example, doesn't require anything by the user and with clever use, an attacker could get just add much value from it as with a privilege escalation bug.
Also XCSSET Updated used a zero day in Safari.
These attacks are still a lot less common vs Windows because the attack surface is much smaller, but it's foolhardy to think macOS is immune in some way.
Rarely do attacks use just one strategy, usually they bundle malware with a zero day of some sort. Since macOS has a small user base, look less at the impact and more at the capabilities. All types of malware exist for macOS, so if it gets much larger adoption, we'll see more effort in packaging them together.
Sure, anti-virus won't prevent the zero day from being exploited, but it can prevent any malware packaged with it from executing/causing damage. The same goes for other strategies, like sandboxing, access control, etc, the more layers you have, the less likely an attack is to be successful.
On the other side, the less valuable your platform is to exploit, the less attention it'll have from malware authors. Most malware is looking to make a quick buck, and getting grandma to call a fake support line to fix a manufactured problem is the lion's share of malware. Some attempt to create a botnet (i.e. worms and Trojans), and others try to steal banking and other credentials (so cookie scraping, no need for privilege escalation, just code execution).
I'm just pointing out that zero days and privilege escalation has existed to show that macOS isn't immune. I'm sure there are plenty more, they just probably aren't used as much because the potential benefit isn't large enough yet. Why risk revealing your zero day when the profit potential is low? Sometimes it's more valuable to wait and sell to a more sophisticated attacker who will go after higher value targets like sitting politicians than to sell it on the open market to a scammer who goes after grandma.
The same goes for Linux. Zero day privilege escalation attacks certainly exist, if you follow the CVEs, you can see some of them getting discovered before they're explored. As the market expands, we'll see more exploits actually being used, which means there are probably even more that potential attackers are sitting on.
Same thing happened on macOS. We used to say it’s immune because everything was written only for Windows. That stopped being true a long time ago and the majority of web servers have been running Linux for a decade. Doesn’t seem so crazy to me that someone would want to regularly scan their Linux boxes for bad code.
You should protect against it, but antiviruses are not the answer. It's more efficient to prevent breaches by building good security into software by design (and keeping your system up to date) than to play an endless game of catch-up enumerating pieces of malware after they're already circulating.
Windows tried this approach and it turned into a mess, antivirus companies turned into villains themselves and it still didn't fix the underlying problems. Eventually they came around to actually fixing security problems, and keeping Windows up to date, and offering a curated source of apps and so on.
You can still use scanning on Linux, but apply it efficiently on entry points, like attachments in your email client or your Downloads dir. Don't run a scanner all the time on all your processes and files, that's a gross waste of resources.
It also makes no sense for a properly secured modern system. Take for example Android, where a userspace antivirus can't work because userspace processes are isolated from each other, and a system level antivirus cannot be trusted because it needs to download signatures externally and can (and probably will) be a breach of privacy.
I basically agree with all the points you are making. Only scan downloads, email attachments and whatnot. Don't try to play cat and mouse with sophisticated malware because that's a waste of resources. I don't think software like this exists?
Perhaps SELinux on desktop is the way to go as other posts are suggesting, although I heard that it has some usability problems and can break some programs.
Schrödinger's Linux fanbase
Linux is so much better and easy to use for casual users. But in order to use it, you have to understand terminal, bash scripting, understand permissions, understand the difference between various flavors, etc