Questions about Defragging or Antivirus? Look here first!

[Pjotr]

Reading some of the posts here and laughing, literally.

So did I, when reading your post.

As Fred Barclay already stated: the *only* correct remark you made, is about the vulnerability of Wine and PlayOnLinux. With all due respect (because of course I assume that your intentions are good), the rest is just FUD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_unc ... _and_doubt

[Cosmo.]

If you connect to the internet and have incoming emails and nothing more you need an antivirus. More viruses, malware etc are sent via email than any other way.

... as executable, which cannot run in Linux. And in very most cases the executables are kind of hidden, because in Windows by default the extension does not get shown (letting the file bad-virus.pdf.exe appear as bad-virus.pdf), a trick that does not work in Linux. Another way of clever protection is to use the plain text format for mails. BTW: AV-programs and some Mails-storage formats (e.g. for Thunderbird) don't act nicely together; the result is in most cases e-mail-loss. Visit a TB-forum of your language for getting details).

Do you download everything you can get your hands on, including music, movies and pics, you need an antivirus.

Thousand of Windows-computers get infected, because the users only think after clicking a link, and all the AV-programs cannot do anything against it. Think before you click is far more safe.

Running ANY Microsoft programs on your system, even under Wine or Playonlinux, then you definitely need an antivirus.

Definitely wrong. If the source of the program is secure, if the Windows-program does not use the Internet connection, you don't.
If you would be right, every Windows system would automatically get infected, if the first program (from official and trusted source) gets installed; fact is, that this is wrong. I have in years even from AV-manufactures not read such a claim.
And something to think about: If all Windows programs are malware-infected by default, why not AV-programs, which are also nothing than a program? On the other side there are enough examples, where AV-programs opened attacking vectors, made a system completely unusable because of false positives or behaved themselves as a kind of malware or spyware.
BTW: Very badly worded by you. Or should you really mean Windows programs from Microsoft in distinction to all the other manufacturers?

If you use the sudo command every time you download a program from sites you don't know is 100% safe, you need an antivirus.

If you do this "every time" you have quite a different problem. At first, as in Linux you install usually by repositories, at second as downloading from not know as safe sites is a principle user mistake and at third, because you will soon get a non-stable system. The AV-program does not even know about such problems. And as sudo and wine are 2 things which are mutually exclusive (see the WineHQ FAQ) you are here about Linux programs. The AV-programs usually only know Wndows-malware and do in case absolutely nothing.

[BoDill]

Hello,

Before writing this post, I spent some time on the internet looking for information because I'm not a whiz at this stuff, and I don't want to waste your time. Sadly, the available information is abundant, confusing, and overwhelming. Among the sites that I have visited are;

...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_mal ... plications

...https://blogs.sophos.com/2015/03/26/don ... -security/

...http://www.tecmint.com/linux-operating- ... irus-free/

(This whole thing is from a website...Linux is secure – isn't it?
Most Linux users are convinced that they are using one of the most secure systems available. That statement is indeed true if you only look at the system and disregard everything else. Because it is occasional unsafe third-party applications or user errors that can turn Linux PCs or servers into virus cesspools. This is also confirmed by the latest study by Kaspersky for the first quarter of 2015 (latest study by Kaspersky for the first quarter of 2015): over 12,700 attacks were launched via botnets, using a Linux system as their basis, by contrast only 10,300 attacks came from botnets with a Windows system. What's more, the life cycle of Linux-based botnets is much longer than those based on Windows. This is because it is much more difficult to ferret out and neutralize zombie networks such as these, as servers under Linux are seldom equipped with special protection solutions – unlike devices and servers under Windows.
In many Linux forums, the freeware products from Comodo, ClamAV and F-Prot are recommended for private users. That is not good advice, however. The test demonstrates that private users would be better advised to go with the freeware versions of Sophos for Linux or Bitdefender Antivirus Scanner for Unices. For server systems, there is even the freeware AVG Server Edition for Linux.
In this test, the best detection rates in terms of Linux and Windows were exhibited by the desktop solution from ESET, followed by Symantec and Kaspersky Lab endpoint versions for company workstations. Recommended for server protection are Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux File Server, AVG Server Edition for Linux and Avast File Server Security.)

As a Linux user of VERY LOW sophistication, I have come to trust this forum for answers to my unsophisticated questions. So.....is there an anti-virus program (or application, or software, or whatever the correct word may be) that you would recommend for a low level user like myself?

Thank you in advance
BoDill

[Pjotr]

(This whole thing is from a website...Linux is secure – isn't it?

Which website is that? Please provide a clickable URL.

[ChrisK99]

(This whole thing is from a website...Linux is secure – isn't it?

Which website is that? Please provide a clickable URL.

https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-si ... -the-test/

[Pjotr]

(This whole thing is from a website...Linux is secure – isn't it?

Which website is that? Please provide a clickable URL.

https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-si ... -the-test/

OK, thanks....

First of all, the source isn't independent: this firm is making its money by testing AV for AV manufacturers. It's therefore in its own financial interest to claim that AV is even necessary for Linux.

Secondly, its statement is based on this claim: "it is occasional unsafe third-party applications or user errors that can turn Linux PCs or servers into virus cesspools." But to back this up, it refers to a Kaspersky report that only talks about infected Linux servers!

In other words: this biased firm is making a claim about Linux desktop PC's that's wholly unfounded. There are no Linux viruses in the wild, so AV is useless. There is Linux malware in (I quote) "occasional unsafe third-party applications", but AV won't help you there. Only install software from the official software sources and you're safe.

The other category named is (I quote) "user errors". A broad category, but as I've already discussed installing third-party software, this can only mean: "install your freaking updates as soon as they are freaking available". No AV will help you when you don't update regularly, so this argument from the biased firm is bogus as well.

Note that I don't hear that firm say anything about this fact of life: antivirus software itself is currently being attacked more and more, because it has by definition high permissions on the system and is often inadequately protected against hacking. This makes AV software an ideal target for hackers.... See this article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2459760/ ... -says.html

So instead of protecting you in Linux, which it doesn't, AV might even endanger your Linux.

[BoDill]

Thank you to all who responded to my post.

BoDill

[Jim Hauser]

Defragging:

I understand that there may be some fragmentation even on a Linux system. My question is this:

I use QT4-FSArchiver to make my backups. If I backup up all partitions and then recover them will this remove any fragmentation? Just a quick thought....

Cheers!

Jim

[Pjotr]

Defragging:

I understand that there may be some fragmentation even on a Linux system. My question is this:

I use QT4-FSArchiver to make my backups. If I backup up all partitions and then recover them will this remove any fragmentation? Just a quick thought....

Cheers!

Jim

I don't know, but just keep at least 20 - 25 % unused on each Linux partition and fragmentation will be *prevented* very effectively. In such a case, fragmentation is simply a non-issue.

[Cosmo.]

I use QT4-FSArchiver to make my backups. If I backup up all partitions and then recover them will this remove any fragmentation?

I am not sure about this, but I think so (if you don't use the cloning feature), as it works on file level.

[postie974]

Thank you for an excellent post Kaye! I have a question for ya. How did you get such a great upload speed anyway?

[bitbybit47]

I use QT4-FSArchiver to make my backups. If I backup up all partitions and then recover them will this remove any fragmentation?

I am not sure about this, but I think so (if you don't use the cloning feature), as it works on file level.

Same here, I think it should remove the fragmentation. Has anyone tested this to be sure? with or without the use of the cloning feature?

[Pjotr]

I use QT4-FSArchiver to make my backups. If I backup up all partitions and then recover them will this remove any fragmentation?

I am not sure about this, but I think so (if you don't use the cloning feature), as it works on file level.

Same here, I think it should remove the fragmentation. Has anyone tested this to be sure? with or without the use of the cloning feature?

Why are you worried about fragmentation at all? Also in this respect, Linux isn't Windows.

Because of the way Linux handles writing to the disk, fragmentation is prevented very effectively:
https://sites.google.com/site/easylinux ... -in-Linux-
(item 4, left column)

[Fred Barclay]

Hi Didilo. Actually the recent Mint hack had nothing to do with viruses at all.

Actually, if popularity = viruses, then the Linux ecosystem would be flooded with viruses already. Almost every supercomputer in the world, and a majority of the servers (that control trillions of dollars) run Linux. Yet viruses are still not a threat.

[Fred Barclay]

Okay, so first off, the Mint problem had nothing to do with viruses. A "computer virus" is a programme that can be executed, can replicate itself, and can insert itself into other code--much like a human virus is alive, can reproduce, and can embed itself into living human cells. A virus doesn't have to be malicious, and it doesn't have to hide itself from the user, but it must contain these characteristics.

Even the loosest definition of a virus, which is "malware that can reproduce itself," has nothing to do with the Mint hack.

What we understand to have occurred were hackers (in Bulgaria?) accessed the Mint website due to a loose file permission in Wordpress (used for the Mint website) and then changed the download links to Mint 17.3 Cinnamon 64-bit to point to a modified, malicious .iso with a backdoor. Can you see how this is nothing like a virus?

Second point: popularity...
So if you were a cracker, tell me which target would interest you more:
a). A home computer running Windows 10, on which you can grab 4 credit card numbers, 1 Gov't ID number (such as Social Security for you Americans), 2 bank account numbers, and $83 in Bitcoins. Oh, and a Beatles album, plus some photos of kittens that used to be cute but really should be deleted now (the photos, not the kittens).

b). A Linux server for a Swiss bank that transfers $2.5 billion (with a "B") daily.

(I don't know about you, but number b sounds like much more fun. Unless you really like the Beatles.)

Of course Windows 10 (or any Windows, or even Mac OS X) beats Linux for home use, but that's besides the point. There's much more motivation to write viruses for Linux, but so fewer virii for Linux than for Windows. (as in, orders of magnitude fewer.) Any idea why this might be?

[Cosmo.]

Almost every supercomputer in the world, and a majority of the servers (that control trillions of dollars) run Linux.

Since when is Linux a big player to home users, even Win10 wins that. Virus ?, recent system hack was directed.

Re-read, what Fred Barclay wrote. Than read the last paragraph in the Operating systems section here.
You might also click on this list of the top of the to 500 supercomputer an you will find, that every of them runs Linux.

[NuLinuxUser]

For those of us who remain unconvinced that AV is unnecessary, how good is the free version of Sophos for Linux and are there other options beside it?

[Cosmo.]

Sophos seems to be unusable. That does not mean, that you should use any other. If you are unconvinced: use what you want at your own risk.

[Fred Barclay]

Of course they're very "geekoid" but that's besides the point.
(Linux is very "geekoid" too if ya hadn't noticed!
Come to think of it, I'm very "geekoid." Are you saying I'm of no relevance to home users? )

You say, "When Linux becomes more popular then the virus issues will rise."
I say, "Linux is already very popular, and yet viruses don't present an issue."

In this case, what Linux is running on doesn't matter. It's not as if viruses say, "Oh, look, I'm in a server. Shucks, I was hoping to infect a home user! I'm just going to die quietly..."

I may be missing what you're trying to say. So let's make it simple:
Linux is already popular. Linux already presents a target worth billions or even trillions to a successful hacker. Can you show me a single GNU/Linux virus that's currently a threat?
Remember the guidelines for what makes up a virus--executable, self-reproduction, and hiding inside other code.

EDIT: Added "GNU" to GNU/Linux

[munkitkat]

I was also in a hesitation about using antivirus and related activities. Your post give me a good guide line. Really nice one. Keep it up.