Lots of talk in the past month about the viruses unleashed to the open. Read more to vote!
Note: The Poll is now closed. Thank you for voting.
Poll: Do you Run Anti-Virus Protection on your Main OS/Computer?
Note: The Poll is now closed. Thank you for voting.
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“A Firewall and an Anti-Virus are 2 different things.”
Usually, yes. However, there are some “firewalls” that do more than just firewall. I use Astaro Security Linux http://www.astaro.com/php/statics.php?action=asl&lang=gb , which has (among MANY other features) integrated virus-scanning capabilities as an add-on, so it’ll handle cleaning your email and all web traffic, though you’d still be vulnerable to something that made its way onto your system via a CD or floppy (does anyone use those anymore? I don’t…).
Configure OE for restricted sites in Tools/Options/Security and configure your Internet Explorer’s ‘Restricted Zone’ for minimal access. That solves much of OE’s vulnerability.
I use IE for known sites and Netscape hooked into Proxomitron w/ Java and Javascript disabled for everything else. That takes care of the IE problem.
I have an AV and FW installed on my 500mhz P3 computer to handle malicious coding and people. Disabled unnecessary ports, shutdown unnecessary services, and update about a week after new updates are released for Windows to watch and see if there are any bugs with the patches.
Removing IE and OE aren’t a necessity, they just need to be locked down.
I run WinXP and Win2K behind a firewall, and I haven’t been infected by a virus yet.
No infections, no hackers, no problems.
I don’t think they’re necessary if you know what you’re doing. I once had two under Windows, but that’s because I was in a n00bish phase. I never got one on Linux. I use a firewall and I don’t run virus-prone software (IE, MS Lookout, etc), so you can say I’m immune to 95% of existing viruses right now. Sure, there’s always the 5%… One could penetrate through my firewall via an exploit or I could simply get a trojan taking connections from an open port on the firewall… That’s a gamble I take. I don’t want to lose up to 25% of my performance just because I *could* get a virus.
I don’t consider myself as being immune just because I use Linux most of the time, but even AV & firewall users shouldn’t consider themselves immune… That’s the worst mistake to do. Yes, that e-mail attachment might be blocked by your crappy NAV or VirusScan, but it might also wreck them, making them useless.
Oh… I know that I could get a virus even if I’m “playing safe”, so I’m still scanning my computer from time to time when I’m on Windows. I usually use this service: http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
Ativo, I was joking about the powerpuff girls thing.
Anyways, i’ve been using windows since Windows 3.1 and haven’t gotten a virus yet, and i’ve never used anti virus software. Sure, it’s theoretical possible I could get a virus – but not likely.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-935994.html
Copies of Visual Studio.NET were distributed with the Nimda virus on them to south Korean developers.
Not all viruses come in emails, or from dubious sources. Unless of course, you consider Microsoft to be a dubious source.
gotchya
I agree with you somewhat. That is the smart thing to do if you have to use them. But you are still at risk, because if enough people wise up like you have, all it will do is make the worm writers seek other ways to break it. You are still the #1 target and believe me, there are ways to get around those settings. All you have done is stalled the inevitable. IE is the worst browser on the market right now. Why would you use it if you didn’t have to? And anyone who enables html in their e-mail is as much responsible for killing bandwidth on the internet as the worm writers…
BTW, inspite i use BeOS as my main OS, i think it is more dangerous than most “unix-alike systems” (Thanks to SCO i don’t risk now to say even unix-like:).
We are running it in SU mode – real permission management is yet implemented, and i really is much more interested if Zeta adresses THIS issue than any flame about 1GB limit.
And some of us are running servers on BeOS which can spread viruses, some have FAT pertitions mounted, on same machines or via CIFS, some have SAMBA installed – all in “root” mode.
But then, I don’t use windows.
But then, I don’t use windows.
As of yet, there are no known viruses for OS X. So, I’m not sure what the anti-virus software would be looking for.
Hell no. To my knowledge, there are no modern viruses for BSD.
I run ClamAV on Linux, installed it this week, but I don’t know if it’s working, and of course I dont really need it… I just need to be able to say yes linux has AV software…
i just use a debugger regularly.
I voted no, but I should add that I do, sort of, but not all the time and not for “my” OS.
I have berav and ravlin installed in BeOS and Linux respectively, but only for use to repair the poor wayward and infected Windows systems I get in to fix.
Both were a product of GeCad Software- Rav AntiVirus. Easily one of the best I’ve used, but unfortunately I believe headed for extinction or far worse, as they’ve been bought by M$.
I guess M$ has more of a need for a great anti-virus product than anyone else, huh!!
I have os x, so I don’ t need antivirus
I’m using linux most of the time so no, although I have dowloaded a free f-prot version for linux from F-Secure…
and accofringly to it there are like 259 known viruses for linux…
On windows it would be a big mistake to have a anti-virus program.
Note: I previously posted has Dra (Auto complete glitch)
Aitvo wrote:
> I’ll make sure I mention that to your ISP the next time I get a hit from your subnet.
What? Please elaborate.
In any case i know I’m not safe you never are no mater the OS you use. I take some precautions by using the built in firewall and disabling some services (Netbios over TCP, Messenger…) and the occasional Anti virus scan and personally that’s enough for me, but i wouldn’t recommend it to anyone else.
The poll result is somewhere around 40% for YES. And all i read is self-important blabla from the naysayers and gross misconceptions of security by obscurity. Fucking UNBELIEVABLE!
I’ve read through most of the 119 previous posts and while there are some voices of sanity, i gathered 3 main arguments, why you don’t use Anti-Virus Software (AVS).
1) You are smart.
2) You are using a different OS than MS Windows.
3) AVS hogs resources.
I will address these arguments in reverse order.
Ad 3) So do viruses. I assume (in your benefit) that you refer to the resident guardians like VShield or some such. When you are so hard pressed for resources (doubtful on contemporary machines, but i regress) use a scheduled scanner. Cronjobs or MS Windows scheduler tasks do this quite nicely. Heck, lots of commercial AVS brings it’s own scheduler if you are to lazy to configure your OS.
Ad 2) Agreed, MS Windows or software running on this platform is the primary target of viruses but what makes you think that therefore there are noviruses for other platforms? That’s somewhat like the unicorn in the drawer comparison (check Dilbert for details). And answering this, i quote from Twelve Angry Men , Juror 8: “It’s possible, that’s all i am saying!”
I don’t know about BeOS or so, but i know that for GNU/Linux there is at least one free (speech and beer) virus scanner: Clam AV. Put it in your crontab and update once a week, it’s not a hassle. Just do apt-get install clamav clamav-freshdata.
Ad 1) Yeah, and you’re in control all the time. Sure. That’s probably the reason why you don’t fasten your seatbelt when you enter road traffic.
I can’t believe this. And you fancy yourselves to be somewhat geeky…
Now flame away, if you must.
Or whatever package management system you are using. Red Hat is rpm -i clamav, if i am not mistaken. Do some reseach for other distros.
Yes i do on my FreeBSD mail firewall we use F-prot and uvscan to filter out infected mails before they run into our LAN
Use AV on my main computer (Win2k, no SP). But I don’t feel threatend becuase I have a router with a built in firewall. And besides.. I’m gonna get rid of my PC soon and get a PowerMac (wish it was a G5
. And I wont be running AV on that machine either, because it will be behind the same firewall and OS X is a much more secure system.
Btw, to all those who say that Linux also will have lots and lots of viruses when it gets more populare, or even becomes the most popular OS on the market. Forget it – Linux (and Unix) is by default a more secure system then any Windows.
Huh?
>> Btw, to all those who say that Linux also will have lots and lots of viruses when it gets more populare, or even becomes the most popular OS on the market. Forget it – Linux (and Unix) is by default a more secure system then any Windows. <<
Yes, right you are and i bet this will be a great source of comfort when your user account is down in flames. Or, when you’re an admin, it will make explaining why the company’s ftp-server is crippled so much easier, etc. Maybe your GNU/Linux will not break down altogether, but there are exploits in GNU/FSS/OSS software and it is tremendously shortsighted to expect that these will not be targeted.
This poll and the reactions don’t say a lot. Especially the poll doesn’t. “I am using Amiga + AmigaOS as my main box and i don’t ever install any software at all nor do i “. Oh my, would an AV make my Mig to a a toad. Anyone running AV on their AMIGA? Does it even exist?
Otoh, my other box is running Windows 95, and has only a printer. It’s not connected to the internet and it doesn’t have a floppy drive (this one’s fictional). I vote ‘no’ and therefore contribute to the outcome whereas it seems that people don’t keep such situations in mind. A AV is NOT needed in all situations! In some it would be very much welcome, in others it ain’t. Same counts for a ‘firewall’, ‘anonimity’, ‘trojan scanner’, ‘ad buster’. What kind of use is an ‘ad buster’ when i don’t even surf!
Another example would be one who compiles from source in combination with md5 checks. This makes the chance of getting a virus in that way ‘low’ that the resources which the AV resource costs might now be worth it therefore negating the ‘So do viruses’ argument. Let this be clear: i’m not stating that it’s not worth it, i say it _could_ indeed not be worth it to run such a thing depending on a various number of factors which one should be able to decide himself.
The general problem with worms and virusses en masse is, and has always been, MS and it’s software. And finally, the AV market is mostly driven by FUD and commercial BS.
For *nix users, the cost factor doesn’t have to be high. For non-commercial *nix users there are various free (as in beer) solutions provided that the user registers for some solutions. For *nix users in general there are free (as in speech) solutions which might not be the best solution because of a lack of features or too small virus DB.
PS: can some admin please make a preview button here?
Did you even read what i wrote?
Unix, and all its bastards and offsprings have more focus on security, and are by design meant to be secure. Even if Linux gains 95% market share, I highly doubt we will se the amount and kind of viruses we now have for Windows.
Norton Anti-virus doesn’t run on Linux. My main OS is Linux not Windoze! 😉
I’m gonna have to check that out. Wonder why it’s not more well known..
dpi: I can’t argue a lot against your first two paragraphs. But it begs one question, why should an online poll consider machines that aren’t online? I, for one, thought it very obvious that people answering and posting online are refering to their connected machines. Maybe this isn’t the case.
About the third paragraph. First, I am in no way trying to force people to use AVS. I am only trying to point out the fallacy of some arguments brought against the usage of AVS. About the MD5 sum controled source. It _could_ (yes, i noticed) be true for alterations of the source after the MD5 sum is calculated and thus it _could_ protect you from later added trojans and/or viruses and therefore render AVS unecessary. But i think, that compiling from source doesn’t protect you from exploits. If you also take the time to audit the source, then maybe. I am not saying that it is impossible to have a secure setup, but i think you will agree that it’s a long and hard way to get there and i wager that your time is a more valuable resource than a machine’s processing time.
The last two paragraphs. I agree that MS could do a better job. Currently they don’t even get an E for effort. It’s more like a “didn’t participate”. ABout thet AV industry, i disagree. Of course they use commercial approaches, hey they are businuesses and entitled to be “evil”, and it’s okay to rise concerns about computer security – even if it’s only to make a quick $. Private users have a rather huge range of free (beer) AVS available and businuesses and state funded ventures can pay, if they insist to. I would recommend, “go GNU/Linux” instead of shelling out big bucks, but that’s only me and my boss happens to disagree. Their choice, their money.
Commercial AVS claim to currently recognize about 90000 viruses, worms, trojans, etc. Clam AV claims about 9000 and i am convinced that the known 260 viruses for GNU/Linux are covered by Clam AV. Therefore i would agree that commercial solutions are to be preferred, but for a GNU/Linux only setup Clam AV is sufficient.
I second the request for a “preview” button
Yes, i read your post, did you read mine?
I maintain GNU/Linux is not more “secure by default” and relying on this false assumption will not help you when disaster strikes. That is what i wrote.
Now i will elaborate: Unix and offspring are a completly different breed to the likes of MS Windows. It is multi-user/multi-tasking compared to the single-user/single-task (and later multi-task) approach of MS Windows. The multi-user design makes it difficult to utilize system resources without the necessary rights, in this way it is safer than MS Windows, right. But there are exploits and it is possible to gain better rights through them. And these exploits will be targeted. I am convinced that once (and of course it will, who woul deny it 🙂 GNU/Linux reaches a market share of 95% it will be the target of as many viruses and other malware as MS Windows is now. The kind may be different, but from the users point of view i don’t see the difference in loosing my home directory to loosing my MS Windows installation. My data is gone, my configurations are lost and i can’t work with the damned machine because my admin was neglecting the security of the setup. When i am talking about a home-based machine i have to double slap myself for being so shortsighted.
Now that the evil monopolist MS is gone and all are using GNU/Linux (which i am doing now, Debian to be precise) we are all happy together and nobody (well, maybe the french, you know them! 😉 will write malicious software. Hello?
Regards nontheless.
Apparently only a few think that an AVS is necessary for GNU/Linux. http://clamav.elektrapro.com/
Sorry.
“But there are exploits and it is possible to gain better rights through them. And these exploits will be targeted.”
True. But on the other hand, if you are able to break into a Windows system you have root more or less instantly, and you can do whatever you want. Btw, I’m talking about home systems here, not big databases of school networks.
Concerning viruses on Linux.. yes they will most likely multiply when Linux gains in popularity. But patches for Linux are released much, much more often than on Windows. If there is a flaw it’s fixed almost instantly. And the Unix way of Root, /home and so on (not running your OS as root, as many do in Windows) makes it more hardened to attack.
got hit by a worm once a few years ago, have not had any virus or other worms on any OS I’ve ever run (OS/2, Win 3.x, Win 95, Win NT, Win 2000, Linux, FreeBSD, C-64, MacOS 7, 8, 9)
now the labs I’ve worked, that is another story, lots of virus and worms there
I don’t run any sort of antivirus program on my Windows XP machine… there isn’t any need provided the system is behind a firewall and its user isn’t a moron.
I think their is a contradiction in their somewhere. (Don’t run anti virus and isn’t a moron? hmmmm.)
Why do so many people have this attitude? I’ve known many people that have said words to this effect, only to have to eat their own words.
my main pc dual boots between xp and linux.
under xp I use avg antivirus 6 (free) and kerio personal firewall (free also)
I have not had a virus in over a year and I feel confident enough with the security that xp will not get screwed up by a virus and leave linux unbootable.
I do not install any patches from microsoft, and I make sure everyone I know has the auto update crap turned off.
I’m not a gambler. In Windows – f/wall,A/V, AdAware, no OE or other MS s/ware, don’t use IE, apply nec patches, safe computing practices in every way – never had a virus & wanna stay that way. No A/V in BeOS just caution. And my new h/d will multi-boot with Linux soon as I decide on a distro.
That’s good, just don’t turn your computer on and you’ll be fine.
I run Linux
loss of business data on xp pro system convinced a small business owner to have his critical customer invoice program on computer not connected to the internet. KLez
virus had made multiple copies in the “return to date” back-up files. you guessed right,he tried to return to a previous date, thinking xp pro would fix the problem. $140
later, i was able to get his 2 systems back to “normal”.
his internet machine is now upgraded to mandrake 9.1 and has had no problems.
In fifteen years of using Macintoshes (512K, MacPlus, SE/30, Powerbook 165c, PPC 7600/132, G3/400) I’ve had exactly ONE virus and that was back in the MacPlus days. How many new viruses have been reported for Mac OS X since it was released a few years ago? I thought so.
I played with ClamAV on the Red Hat box (which OS I additionally started playing with in January of last year) and nothing’s turned up yet, so I don’t leave it running all the time.
I really have to laugh every time I see a virus report that says “we’re getting tired of saying this, but as usual, MacOS, Linux, and OS/2 are not vulnerable to this issue”
I don’t allow my Windows XP installation to have networking of any kind. (Can’t break into a place with no doors or windows) I do all that kind of stuff on BeOS or Mac OS X, neither which are virus targets (at least now).
Good article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34978-2003Aug23.html on why even if Mac OS had 85% marketshare, it would still be less vulnerable to attacks, and if attacked less damage would be done becuase the seperations of user and system space.
Mac OS X.2.6 no virus protection. Been using Macs since OS 7.0 w/ no protection.
2 Win2k machines both do nightly security updates and AVG anitvirus updates.
One Win2k machine handles all my backups, so I will probably be switching it to RH.
If I was stupid enough to pay for windows I would probably be smart enough to get a virus scanner. But Im not stupid so I dont have to be smart to compensate
I thought that the blaster/welchia virus had nothing to do with attachments and email/scripting? Just because you’re clever enough to not open attachments or use Outlook… what about the viruses that specifically attack OS features of Windows (which is pretty much the whole problem with Windows)? The school I work at has a firewall and does not use Outlook for email. Yet, there we are, being screwed by the Blaster/welchia thing anyway. Had nothing to do with stupidity on the users’ part. The users weren’t the problem.
While I use FreeBSD, and I thus don’t need a virus scanner, that Sobig.F still gives problems: only today alone I received 50 virus mails, along with 3 real mails.
Usually my WEB.DE address downloads the GMX mail and throws away the virusses, but today I decided to check my GMX mail directly and wham, that huge pile of virusses.