I am confused about installing some virus scanning software on my Linux system. Thought of installing clamav, so will that be good or if anyone is using any better one, please do suggest. Thanks in advance.
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.96K Posts
- 74.6K Comments
- Modlog
Don’t think Clamav does scanning of everything you launch, it works on files you request to scan usually for mail or file servers. The result is not that great from my experience though neither are with kaspersky or eset and they actually ask money for that.
Why do you need an antivirus? Do you plan installing viruses? It’s pretty uncommon request for Linux desktop as you’d have to put some effort to finding and running some Linux virus(actually, please dm if you find one).
I didn’t know if we have to scan files manually in it.
I just want to make my system more protected, because it’s said that linux is more prone to attacks than windows. So maybe I just need a software which can monitor if everything is going good. and I am a newbie in linux, so sorry if that question sounded vague.
Who says Linux viruses are more common than Windows viruses? That just sounds patently false. Why would someone have more incentive to do that? The point of a virus is to infect a computer. Why would someone spend hours developing a virus for a desktop operating system that only comprises a mere 1.2% of the market share?
I get it now, looked it up. Was just being paranoid maybe.
Not saying an antivirus would be a bad thing. It all depends on your threat model. I was merely responding to that one point you made. :)
I understand your point
i think you have it the other way around. usually windows is more prone to/attacks than linux. for a program to be installed system-wise, or a program to make system changes it has to have sudo privileges, and you would definitely be prompted for a password then.
but if you want people you share your files to be protected, you can by all means use an antivirus.
Yeah you are right I suppose, I looked up a bit, idk if root privileges can be compromised by some means, but I got to know that there aren’t many viruses made for linux based systems. So getting a virus in a file is rare case maybe, hence using an antivirus may be of no use. Thanks anyways :)
Running an antivirus on Linux only addresses a psychosomatic issue, it is of no benefit and produces zero positive results.
Not true. If its a file server or mail server or something similar you can catch something before other users download it. The detection is always going to be dependent on the signatures but to say it is of no benefit is simply false.
Yes. And even then you’re filtering windows viruses. Nothing that could or would run on the server or even in any client that isn’t an ancient version of outlook.
Those seem to have pretty much disappeared in the last decade of not before. No vulnerable systems, no infections. No infections, no viruses being sent. There is still potential for scanning somewhere but intrusion detection and spam filtering is more realistic than viruses.