Is it necessary to have anti-virus or anti-malware software for Zorin? If so, what are some good options?
Thank.s.
You open up a fiery can of worms of debate.
As does this.
Me; I don't use any. I have more dangerous methods of dealing with intruders.
4 Likes
I even do not want to know what they are... 
2 Likes
There's also a neat trick that is hard to explain, but a good example would be- imagine a modified form of "Suicide Linux" that is triggered by different means than a terminal error.
In combination with a complete shut down of CPU clock throttling (Major over-clocking)...
1 Like
CLAMAV/CLAMTK is the standard anti-virus APP that comes with most Linux distro's. Its most certainly not the best anti-virus APP in the world, but its free.
4 Likes
My husband uses that to scan a file before he gives it to Windows/Mac users.
1 Like
Yes, AGREED, but might I add, Ransomewear has been on the rise again, and Linux isn't automatically safe from Ransomewear and never was. The only thing that makes you safe from Ransomwear, is really yourself, your choices. You have to be safe wherever you go. But that goes without saying.
Also, I'd like to add one more point. I do like CLAMAV/CLAMTK most of the time, but its not as good as a real PAID software. I say this from experience of having used both.
But the real point I wanted to make, is that, if you should choose to use CLAMAV or CLAMTK, depending on your preference, CLI vs GUI, one thing remains extremely clear. It uses a lot of memory, and I mean a lot!
In order for quick detection of all known virus's, the APP must hold 1.1GB of virus definitions in your RAM at all times. So what does this mean for you? Well, if you only have 4GB of RAM, your not going to be a happy camper, with OS overhead, your looking at probably having only 2GB of RAM max FREE.
I think 8GB of RAM is the sweet spot for a general workstation with virus definitions loaded in RAM, you should have about 6GB of RAM free roughly. If your machine is going to be gaming, or doing some production work, I would recommend 16GB of RAM.
That would leave you with 14GB of RAM free, and you will still be able to play just about all games with that no problem, and you will still be protected my CLAM.
1 Like
[quote="tomscharbach, post:9, topic:8573"]
Do you have a recommendation for @Tom3746 among the paid alternatives?
[/quote]
I used this a while ago just out of curiosity. It did not have GUI, but it worked:
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-linux.aspx/RK=2/RS=caAEioDVltcMG4sRYQ.wlS_THec-
I think it is still free though.
1 Like
Actually, there is the most powerful and best anti-virus software in the world, and they have a made for Linux native version of their software. Its called ESET.
I would like to get this software myself, but I can't afford it. Like I said, its paid, so it follows the usual paid style that all paid anti-virus does, like year subscription.
4 Likes
Ah, good.
Then it fits the bill 
1 Like
Ahhhhhh, thats the pits! Grrrr 
Truth is, I've been wanting to get ESET for the Linux desktop since 6+ years ago. But I could never justify the cost, and here I am kicking myself for not doing it. I see why I missed that message, I am in DARK MODE on the Chrome browser, and it covered up the yellow highlights, so I never saw it.
Truth is, I don't really understand why they are abandoning support for ESET for Linux desktop? I mean, is it just chat support they are abandoning? Or is it virus definition update support? Cause if its no more virus update support, well then its a no go.
But I think I could deal with no longer chat with agent support type deal, I could care less about that, I don't see me using one of those.
1 Like
I fixed it.
I have absolutely no Anti-virus on Linux.
I do not have to share any files with Win/mac users myself.
I looked up Business end point, its like 240 dollars, way beyond the scope for a home owner. I read the features on it though, looks like top notch security software that I'd only be too lucky to run. But not for 240 dollars, not gonna happen.
We will see where things go for desktop users. The most I could consider is 60 dollars, but even then thats a bit of a stretch. If I could get year around protection for 40 dollars per year, that wouldn't be too bad I think for home desktop use.
EDIT: I just looked over your link, and holy freaking balls that is unbelievably complicated. So many terminal commands, and literally 0 lamen explanation. It completely assumes that your a network IT professional.
FYI: Thats the sort of stuff that makes Windows users who want to switch to Linux, change their mind. I mean, they gotta be unreal. I mean have a look at that people, don't just take my word for it. Its stupidly complicated, completely unnecessary.
IDK, I think ESET just caters to Windows users more then anything else. Have a look at their products page, and that will be blantly obvious. I think I am losing respect for ESET now, cause they just don't seem to give a crud about Linux users.
1 Like
As above ESET is good but I'm not paying the full freight when Windows/MAC and Android users can get a home version for $20 on sale.
I use sophos as I have an old free version that I just keep updating. I believe they will stop updating it next year.
1 Like
No I think even on Windows Anti Virus is pointless, just don't be dumb when installing things on your system.
There is another "Anti Virus" thread here:
I run the occasional ClamTK scan, followed by Rkhunter scan. Both need interpretation of results as Clam throws up false positive hits for Potential Unwanted Apps (PUA's) and Rkhunter also throws up "Warnings" for suspicious large memory segments and hidden directory, which are just warnings, not trouble.
Large memory segments? Well, then that means it wouldn't like my whopping 32GB of RAM, too bad, it can't have it. 
2 Likes
@StarTreker Not that large 
Example Rkhunter Warning:
/usr/bin/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server .....size16MB(allowed1.0MB)
wow 32gb 
. I am at 4gb . do you have 1tb ssd or hdd.
It's not resorting to, it is making efficient use of a powerful tool. I think this really demonstrates that- it is all in how you perceive it. I think the bias against the terminal is far more important than the tools themselves. In my mind, this is akin to a person doing everything they can to avoid a box end wrench because they only want to use a ratchet for everything. Sometimes, the ratchet applies as the right tool for the job. Sometimes, the box wrench does.
If you find CLI complicated... What's to stop you from finding GUI complicated? What makes GUI easier or does anything?
The More GUI must try to emulate the power and versatility of CLI, the more development that is needed to fit all that functionality into it and the more buttons and menus needed - it grows exponentially.
Lack of Full Scale Paid and supported development of such may well be why Linux has limits on that.
Well said. This is also why many distros shun the gnome-software app as hopeless and use Synaptic, instead.
1 Like