ESET Antivirus for Linux?

I think you may be right. I have a cousin who tells me he has never used an antivirus on Windows in 9 years and has never had a virus. I remember reading a story on the guy that started
McCafee antivirus saying that he does not use any antivirus or software protection.

“I'm constantly under attack, yet I use no software protection. I protect myself by constantly changing my IP address, by not attaching my name to any device I use, and by not going on to sites where you might pick up a virus. Secondly, I practice safe computing. If someone sends me an email with a link, I'm not going there until I can call the person to verify that they sent me the email. It sounds absurd to live that way, but I would rather trust my own devices and thoughts than someone else's software," John McAfee told BBC.

 

So the cousin only used on-demand scanners to check the PC every now and then to see if an infection already had happened? Or maybe he didn't even do that. Was he totally naked for 9 years, no security softwares what so ever?

Yes that might work for him, but for 99% of the internet users it will not. Call the email sender to ask about a link everytime sounds time consuming.

 

i don't even go to such measures.
i don't open email attachments unless i know they are safe.
meaning i know who they are from, i am expecting them, and Outlook does not flagged them as suspicious.
it's all that's needed.
all executables i download are scanned with VirusTotal if they are not from a reputable source.

of course, this is easier in Linux because Linux in not as targeted as Windows.

the only security i use in Windows is the built-in firewall and on-demand scanners like VirusTotal.

 

Windows security doesn't depend only on the user. Windows is unsecure by design, and not using an AV is the same as leaving the front door of your house open to invisible thieves.

Even if just standing there with no user at all, Windows can be breached. Imagine with no security software what could happen, the possibilities of being infected are extremely high, be it with a simple infected .jpg or pdf your friend sends you or entering a website you don't know. It's very easy to invade a Windows computer with no protection.

Wrong. He never found a virus, and even if he actually had a virus he wouldn't be able to tell.

Not only time consuming, but money consuming too. It would be much easier and safer to just use a free AV, like Comodo or Avira, both are very good. Or a combo of them.

Not using an AV on Windows gives you a false feeling of safety in which you believe only you have the actions upon what your computer does. Either that or you think your knowledge about safety and breaching is much superior to most crackers out there who live with the help of people who think the same way

 

@amarildojr, some comments:

- Modern versions of Windows (Vista and later) are much more securely designed than prior versions. Breaking Windows XP security (with or without an AV) is the kind of thing any schmoe can do on a weekend over some coffee and a sandwich (and how I wish I were kidding). But breaking Windows 7 security is not trivial.

- Your AV is not your front line of defense, unless you count the filtering proxies in some security suites (which can actually be very effective from what I've seen). I won't discount AVs being useful, but too many people think that AV software is the be-all and end-all of security, and are helped along in that fallacious belief by AV companies' aggressive advertising. There's a lot more to it than that.

- I think you're doing being a little bit alarmist about the chances of getting compromised...

- Using AV products in combination is not necessary, and will slow your system down a lot.

 

really?

the only protection i have been using on Windows in the past 3 years is the built-in firewall and on-demand scanner.
works for me.

where is all that malware i am supposed to fear?
i am starting to think this is all paranoia.

 

Actually, it was Vista who got invaded on the hacker fare I was talking about. Mac was invaded within a few minutes and Vista in around 2 hours, both systems fully up-to-date and just standing there by themselves. Ubuntu was the only one that didn't get invaded, and the prize for it's invasion was around 20.000 $ if I recall.

Correct.

Yes.

That depends on the importance of the data you have on your HD. If you have nothing but some games, pictures, some videos and music, then yeah nobody would care that much. But I can't take any chances, that's why I reduce my chances to a minimum.

Not really. I didn't notice any slow down on my system, and my system is old (dual core with a 5400 RPM HD, for cheezus sakes). There are some combinations that will slow down most PC's, but those who work good on mine are:

* KIS + CIS;
* KIS + avast! Free;
* KIS + avira;
* avast! Free + CIS;
* avast! Free + avira Free + Comodo Firewall;
* KIS + ESS;

I'm not going into the "necessary" topic because everybody has different needs

 

I wouldn't think ANY scanner is 100% efficient, specially since it's possible to create undetectable malware. It's not easy, but not impossible. Those who have the skills have thousands of victims all over the world, all thinking "hey, my av is protecting me! I don't have malware! ". Yeah, right. Can't imagine those who don't use AV at all =/ It's so sad that they feel protected.

But I agree with the paranoia. I worry(ied) too much about this. I used to scan my drive with 4 different antivirus boot cd's every sunday. I just can't stand being unprotected I even worry there's an unknown malware for Linux that nobody knows about and infected everybody who uses it. It's totally possible, but most chose not to care about it. I'm starting to drop all this paranoia and not care about many things too, but my security measures will either remain the same or improve over time.

 

the thing i used to worry the most about were drive-by malware.
those seems to be a thing of the past.

the only virus i have been aware of in the past 3 years are those coming from emails, but those are easy to spot.
especially when you receive airplane tickets or wedding invitations and the likes as attachments.
even more so if you never fly or don't know anyone who is getting married.

Hotmail/Outlook do a pretty good job of filtering those out.
but i would say i get one of those every month on average.
so it's certainly something to keep an eye out for, especially for the Joe and Jane Average without a clue.

this is certainly where Linux users are more protected than Windows users.
but if Linux was as popular as Windows, it probably would be targeted a lot more.

 

@amarildojr:

- The contest you're talking about was Pwn2Own, which
a) involves a lot of very expert people.
b) cannot be taken as an indicator of overall OS security
c) cannot be taken as an indicator of ITW threats

- You may not have had any problems combining AVs, but that doesn't mean problems don't exist with doing so. Think about it; two AVs means two drivers competing for I/O, possibly conflicting kernel hooks, stuff like that.

 

If you feel the need for an av on linux then a free option would be far better rather than buying a product to protect a system which is more secure than a windows computer.

 

hi
More than in MST environement, AVs in Linux provide more than a false sense of security.
They contain often the user in the static way of defense with the click and scan syndrome.
But in Linux, it is suited for the user to learn the A-B-C of system checking for signs of compromise.
Theses 3 last years have seen the raise of sophisticated and cross platform malwares, as an exemple this bot which takes advantage of java
https://threatpost.com/cross-platform-java-bot-used-for-ddos-attacks/103912
By experience, an AV in Linux is quite useless.
Their signature is reliable against old and known malwares.
But they are quite ineffective against modern and advanced malwares (mostly backdoors and rootkits).
Using or not using Eset av is just a question of experience.
If the user is not armored to detect by his own analysis suspect bynaries or packets, then of course, it is suited to rely on the av.
And this is an exhaustive toppic that can not be circumscribed by a few lines only.

Rgds

 

I would recommend AppArmor+GRsecurity(http://www.insanitybit.com/2012/12/17/hardening-ubuntu-linux/) + Chrome

 

a) Which couldn't do anything to a Linux install, but did with Mac and Windows
b) I didn't say it was
c) And your point is....?

Problems may or may not occur. That's more than obvious. I just pointed to the ones that worked for me for several years, which of course will never count as "absolute truth that works for everybody".