Comments on: Does Ubuntu need antivirus?

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:05:10 +0000

Those advocating the theory that Linux is only more secure because of it’s low market share (Peter, meikel14) should do some more research. Simply not true.
The Unix security model *does* make a huge difference as compared to Windows. As the author says, nothing will make people safe if they behave stupidly and install recklessly, but at least Linux *allows* a user to behave safely.
Security by obscurity does not work! Source code makes a system much more secure. The black box DLL model that Windows runs under for profiteering reasons is also bad engineering for security and performance. Local compiles are a better way.(But then source code gets distributed…not good for profits!)

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:31:51 +0000

Antivirus is not the “locks on the doors”; it’s the alarm system that *might* go off after you’ve already been compromised…

A malicious user may have access to Linux source code, but he will NOT have the ability to inject malware into future Linux releases to be exploited.

And should anyone be worried that a malicious user has the ability to scan the source code looking for vulnerabilities? No… Millions of other eyeballs have preceded him doing the very same thing — and removing the vulnerabilities as they find them.

This sort of scrutiny & vetting does NOT happen with closed-source operating systems. (When’s the last time you successfully submitted a bug report to Microsoft for “leaving the doors open” in Windows?)

By: ubuntucat

ubuntucat — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:05 +0000

It is foolish to think Linux will always be the safest route. Good thing I never said that.

The post, if you read it, is about whether you should run antivirus or not.

And the bottom line is that whether there are real security threats or not, running antivirus does not protect you. Antivirus is useless.

As for source code availability making it easier for malicious folks to compromise a system, that sounds right in theory, but in practice, we know this not to be true. If it were true, closed source operating systems and applications would almost never be compromised… and they almost always are.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:41:59 +0000

meikel14 is absolutely right. It is foolish to think that Linux would always be the safest route. While I agree that it is now, and am very impressed by its open-source philosophy, it is true that the free source code would prove to be a spectacular tool for the malicious user. However, I still find it unlikely that Linux will ever get quite that popular, so for now I’m comfortable sitting here with my safe OS.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:50:45 +0000

Linux in general rocks. I remember when I first installed Ubuntu I went to http://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2 to test how secure the distro was, And was amazed to see every port was register as “stealth”. In comparison with Vista, half the ports where either “open” or “close”. But I agree with what the author mention, Is basically up the user that determines the security of his OS.

By: Salman, Khwaja

Salman, Khwaja — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:25:05 +0000

I would agree to what the writer documented in this article. Yeah. The only way to secure Windows system is to use Firewall and use non-Microsoft Products, Like FireFox, thunderbird. Still, I love saying this. “UBUNTU ROCKS”

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:35:56 +0000

Just don’t use a proprietary bundle of software called windows. Use something based off unix, or unix like. The security models are superior to Windows design of an open system that just got crappy locks. The User is always at fault – the number one reason of computer issues.

By: hax0r_

hax0r_ — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:49:36 +0000

Everything its right for everyone, everyone can expose their opinion because it is free, but meikel14 its right. Because how nobody’s perfect – like that – nothing’s perfect.

By: Siddhant Sanyam

Siddhant Sanyam — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:54:45 +0000

Well,
I think the writer of the article has busted all doubts regarding the very famous topic “Virus Protection for Linux”.
As I often come across people arguing with me on the topic, I can simply redirect them on this article.
I am absolutely with the writer and believe that nothing can actually stop viruses entering Windows Systems. Whereas Linux, because of its internal architecture is much much more secure than Windows.
Also, there is no cure of “Social Engineering”.
Being secure is an art, not science.

By: meikel14

meikel14 — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:50:48 +0000

I don’t believe that the author of the article is smug – just a little naive.
He states that installing malware would be difficult because of the way Linux is setup into two different types of accounts. The administrator has the right to install programs and modify settings, the user just uses the system and the software. What makes this statement naïve is the idea that this “wall” will not be surmounted. At this time, Linux has according to Wikipedia a market share of just 2% in the overall Desktop OS Segment. These numbers alone make Linux uninteresting to the criminal hacker, who has a bigger target in Window’s 90%. But what if the goal of the Linux community to surpass Windows is reached? Than the interest would be peaked because now hackers have a bigger target. Having access to the entire source code of Linux – Kernel and Applications – makes it even easier to infiltrate a system considered save.