ClamAV is probably the way to go. While there are UIs available in various states of maintenance, it's not really necessary. The way ClamAV works is that runs a scan on daemon (re)start then continually monitors the system from there. One of it's best features is that you don't really need to worry about it.
Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
Thanks! I wasn't aware that it was such a fire-and - forget software.
An antivirus is mostly unnecessary when care is taken to not install or use untrusted software. If you install everything as a Flatpak (and modify some of the default permissions), you can avoid allowing software to gain much access to her computer.
While I think people suggesting Linux is immune to malware is stupid, for reasons such as it is "too secure" or "too niche" to be effected by malware, anti malware is like a bandaid to a gaping wound. If you have malware, it is already too late and you should first unplug the device from the network and any connected devices, backup any important data, and fresh reinstall by overwriting the infected install.
If you still think you need some way to defend against malware, use the VirusTotal website, or a native Flatpak called Lenspect, to upload and scan files (such as an executable binary). Lenspect requires no permissions other than network access, so it is safe and the only risk is if you input a file containing personal data it will be uploaded to VirusTotal.
Though to stress again, antivirus is a bandaid! The real solution is to be smart about what you install and only take stuff from trusted sources. Try to make sure everything is a Flatpak and avoid apps with excessive permissions, which weaken the security of the sandbox.
To be more clear, antivirus in general are mostly scams because they are advertised to do much more than they are actually capable (especially proprietary ones that act as spyware such as Norton or Avast, which have been caught selling user data). Hash based antivirus solutions (such as ClamAV) aren't effective either because they rely on "badness enumeration", in which you try to determine all the bad samples (through a sample list(s)) and alert or delete them when detected. This isn't a good solution because a threat actor only has to add for example a single whitespace character into the code and it will produce a wildly different hash (which has not been sampled before). Badness enumeration is shit way to deal with real problems, much better is an allowlist approach, such as a permission system where to minimize the access given and soften the security until the app runs.
TLDR: Antivirus bad at job of stopping malware, and sandboxed apps good for security of your device.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that antivirus is mostly a scam. Yes, there are some questionable vendors out there, but it doesn't mean it's a scam. I know antivirus has saved my ass a couple of times, at least when I was younger. Was I doing something stupid? Yes. Do we all do something stupid every once in a while? Also yes.
I agree with your demonstration, but not the conclusion. The main threat in OP case is random attack made by massive and standardize attack. So hashed signature are better than nothing. Of course it is not enough for all kind of attack, like a focus one
ClamAV is purely hash-based, not heuristic? I knew it scored incredibly poorly in AV tests, which would make sense if that's still their approach.
I think there's a few aspects to this whole subject.
First of all for a long time people have thought Linux not to be the target of malware. I would say that it has been a target and it has been for decades. I recall in the late 90s a Linux server at work was attacked, had a rootkit, IRC trojan and attack kit installed by script kiddies in Brazil. I think the nearest you can say is that desktop users aren't usually a target, which is mostly true. But with the share of desktop installs hitting a high recently we should expect that to change.
Second I think most windows antivirus products (including the built in one) are doing some active useful things. Most of these are not relevant on Linux (we generally don't run setup.exe from random websites). However! Here's where things get interesting. The rise of flatpak and other containerised applications. These I would say are very similar to setup.exe, and would make it trivial to embed malware into such a file. A Linux virus scanner could be checking these. Also we've seen direct attacks on distro repositories lately. I don't expect this to slow down. We are most certainly a target now.
Third, the other reason most Linux users don't use virus scanners is because they're usually technical people who would recognise (usually) something wrong and investigate/spot the malware. I would say two things are changing here. Simpler to install distros are bringing in less technical people to Linux and, the number of processes running on a machine doing effectively nothing in a desktop environment is way higher than it used to be. So technical people can be caught off guard. Also, a rootkit can hide all of these clues if done well.
So I would say there's a really good space to have a well made virus scanner/antivirus now. It is probably the right time for it.
Guarantee my fifteen year old would run a random curl with sudo if it purported to install Sims mods. And one might say, "then don't give her sudo," but you have no idea how often I'd have to run to the basement to type in a password onto her computer, if it's anything like Windows. (Haven't moved her to Linux yet, but it's coming.)
We definitely cannot rely on the technical savvy of Linux users any more. At least, I can't.
but you have no idea how often I’d have to run to the basement to type in a password onto her computer,
For what it's worth: It's possible to configure sudo in a way that allows users to execute specific commands without having to grant full, unrestricted access. That's what sudo is for.
we generally don’t run setup.exe from random websites
We do run .deb/.rpm files from random websites though. And you mentioned flatpak too. Appimage is quite popular too, and afaik that doesn't have any built-in sandboxing at all.
We do run .deb/.rpm files from random websites though.
In general with Linux sites with deb/rpm/etc files would usually include hashes for the genuine versions etc. Not to say the actual author of these could be malicious.
And you mentioned flatpak too. Appimage is quite popular too, and afaik that doesn't have any built-in sandboxing at all.
Even with sandboxing, they generally need access to save files/load files etc from the host environment. Where are these connections defined? Could a malicious actor for example grant their malicious appimage/flatpak more access? Genuine questions, I've never looked into how these work.
In general with Linux sites with deb/rpm/etc files would usually include hashes for the genuine versions etc. Not to say the actual author of these could be malicious.
Imho, these hashes are hardly a security feature. If a malicious actor can control the file that you download, they likely can also control the hash.
Even with sandboxing, they generally need access to save files/load files etc from the host environment. Where are these connections defined? Could a malicious actor for example grant their malicious appimage/flatpak more access? Genuine questions, I’ve never looked into how these work.
Good question. I hope there's some form of security present, but I really don't know.
But in the end, the most valuable stuff on a computer is user data anyway. Who needs root on a machine, if the attacker can also encrypt all your personal files?
AppImages have no sandboxing as you said. They also rely on the deprecated SUID-root binary FUSE2. AppImages are bad for security but they are convenient. A malicious AppImage could for example connect to org.freedesktop.secrets and access your keychain, or run a script that places a script called "sudo" in $HOME/.local/share/bin that is preferred over the real sudo and logs a password, or encrypt your files in a ransomware attack, or exfiltrate your session cookies from Firefox or Chromium browsers.
Flatpaks on the other hand are sandboxed. IIRC Flatpaks can't access other Flaptak's data folders in $HOME/.var/app (maybe even if home access is given?), but if given access to the "home" permission they can read and write to anywhere else in the user home, so stealing session cookies from a browser or ransomware could still be possible given the right permission. Modern apps that are designed to work as Flatpaks can use the xdg-desktop-portal to access only specific files/dirs upon user request, but it is only temporary access to a file. All the ways a Flatpak can access the system are defined by its permissions, so by giving more/dangerous permissions (such as devices or full filesystem access) a malicious app can possibly escape the sandbox and access arbitrary permissions. The worst permission an app can have is access to session bus for org.freedesktop.Flatpak, which allows it to arbitrary permissions, host command execution, and access to Flatpak configuration.
There is more to xdg-desktop-portal than I said, it is quite powerful.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/XDG_Desktop_Portal
https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/docs/
This Flatpak shows the power of portals on your system, while also requiring no permissions at all: https://flathub.org/en/apps/com.belmoussaoui.ashpd.demo
Same with this one, but it requires arbitrary permissions: https://flathub.org/en/apps/xyz.tytanium.DoorKnocker
I think you're missing the point that antivirus should kick in before the malware executes. It's far from 100%, but if you download something stupid, the antivirus should in most cases flag that before you even have a chance to execute it. In that case, you delete it, and the problem is solved, no need to reinstall or anything of the kind.
Of course the "real" solution is to be smart about what you install, but no one is perfect and we also can't expect the world to be super computer literate (unfortunately).
Linux viruses for desktop computers are so rare, they're pretty much unheard of in practice. And that's why virus scanners aren't really a thing on regular computers. What we do is protect servers against malware and rootkits. And the Linux mailserver or fileserver will run a virus scan before forwarding the mails to the employee's Windows computers. That's why ClamAV doesn't come with a GUI because it's supposed to run in the background on your mailserver or NAS, not on your computer...
I'd recommend a virus scanner if you run Windows games and software (via Wine/Proton/Steam). Especially if they're not from Steam but (pirated from) random places of the internet. If you run Linux software, ideally from the package repository, there's little to no benefit in installing antivirus due to the lack of viruses.
Pay attention to security though. There's a lot of other nefarious stuff out there. Password brute forcing, phishing, regular fraud, attacks if you don't do updates, a harddisk might fail...
Can you share more about virus scanner for Windows stuff?
Is there one that can run completely locally? Or do they usually need to upload the file/signature online?
Usually how regular virus scanners work, they download a package with virus signatures every day or so and match the files against that local copy of the database. Unless you decide to use a service like virustotal... Sorry, I'm a bit of the wrong person to answer this question. I've been using Linux for the last 20 years or so. That means last antivirus I installed was about that long ago... I just hope Steam scans their game catalog, seems they do and that is my only source of Windows executables. So I'm fine on my private computers. And for work I'd just use whatever is provided to me.
Yeah, that's out of date. While AV still uses file signatures, the modern stuff is behavioral. If you have a file whose instructions use undocumented or low-level APIs, it can look like an exploit and the AV flags it. Endpoint protection products like Sentinelone also take the role of endpoint firewall, managing access to network resources, not just the OS, disk, etc. So if you start sending encrypted requests through uncommon APIs to a cloud server in China, it's gonna get you blocked.
This.
You install a virus scanner on your smb fileshare or your mail server, for instance, and pipe attachments through it to protect windows boxes. That's the only sensible use.
Yet, idiots make policies like "all servers must have AV installed for safety" and thus some shit app sucks down all the CPU time and scans memory (ohai PCI compliance) just because the CTO doesn't know what 'less' does.
I like to consider myself part of the exclusive and oh so elite club of linux users. everyone here saying that AV is not needed, because the best security is not to be stupid, is right. but is your grandma tech literate enough to not do stupid things on her computer? your teenage son?
as the linux user base grows, the platform becomes more interesting of a target. even for stupid attacks. and lets be honnest: lots of legitimate open source projects still use an install script to curl and pipe into the terminal as a suggested method to install. which is just horrible!
while an anti malware is a patch. it is the last line of defense after a stupid mistake. so it would be great to have an actual desktop AV for linux. eset used to sell one but it is long out of service.
i use clamAV. but i maintain it for the family, so it is not as simple as telling them exactly what to install and run with default configs.
anyway, for those interested: here are two videos of malware attacks against lunux in rather different fashions:
The best Linux antivirus is a healthy dose of dontclickshit.bin.
She’s not afraid of the terminal, but she likes the convenience of GUI programs.
Your wife appears to have the same preferences as I do. I don't mind using the terminal (I usually have one open any time I'm using my laptop or PC), but some things are far simpler in a GUI.
No av on my machines on Linux.
What I understand, av on Linux is used to protect windows.
Use an ad blocker when surfing (ublock origin), install only via official repos and set up a DNS server with decent blocklist and you should be fine.
Yeah, that arrogance will hit you sooner or later.
As the popularity of Linux increases, so will the malware situation worsen.
What makes you think that a "antivirus" is going to do anything?
Security is hard
Security is hard and as Linux becomes a more lucrative target for malware something will slip through. We've already seen attempted supply chain attacks with xz and we know that Linux ransomware is out there. AV isn't a silver bullet; it's another layer in your defences.
You might have issues trying to install clamav on Bazzite as it is an immutable distro
Antiviruses are rarely used, I wouldn't install them on a newish distro for a non-tech user. It sounds like it may cause more issues than it will intercept
Kinda mirroring the other points here, if you only install from the distro's repos then you're all good.
But...
Better than AV (blocks known bad), you're better off looking into things that only allow known good, like selinux, etc, which might be part of bazzite anyway? (I don't use it, so unsure)
ClamAV is the thing to use, AV-wise, but it makes no sense to use it and spend resources unless you know in advance you are going to get Windows stuff at risk.
I'm not sure you really need an anti virus with Bazzite? Because it is immutable and has rolling releases it's generally pretty up to date and secure
If you were running a more traditional distro it might be more of a requirement
for ease of mind just install clamtk but clamav pretty much runs automagically without intervention.
I believe Kaspersky has just released a commercial solution for desktop Linux. Kaspersky is a whole other can of worms, however seeing as they're russians but that's your call
Kaspersky isn't there to protect us; just to fill a niche and create business for itself. Idiot nepo CTOs who don't know better can be coerced to sign a fud-based invoice and then they make bank.
Long-time Linux user, have never run AV on my Linux machines.
A few years back, I was forced by compliance rules at work to install AV on a Linux server and started looking for solutions. I shopped around a bit and what I found was that even the commercial AV vendors who supported Linux had no more than 4 or 5 actual signatures to detect Linux malware, and they were all 5 or more years old.
Things may have changed since then, but this may be a good way to think about it... how much Linux malware can these tools actually detect?
Yes, Linux rootkits are a thing but if your AV doesn't detect them, there's no point running it.
