Selfhosted

39435 readers

2 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Alternative to ClamAV? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TL;DR - What are you running as a means of “antivirus” on Linux servers?

I have a few small Debian 12 servers running my services and would like to enhance my security posture. Some services are exposed to the internet and I’ve done quite a few things to protect the services and the hosts. When it comes to “antivirus”, I was looking at ClamAV as it seemed to be the most recommended. However, when I read the documentation, it stated that the recommended RAM was at least 2-4 gigs. Some of my servers have more power than other but some do not meet this requirement. The lower powered hosts are rpi3s and some Lenovo tinys.

When I searched for alternatives, I came across rkhunter and chrootkit, but they seem to no longer be maintained as their latest release was several years ago.

If possible, I’d like to run the same software across all my servers for simplicity and uniformity.

If you have a similar setup, what are you running? Any other recommendations?

P.S. if you are of the mindset that Linux doesn’t need this kind of protection then fine, that’s your belief, not mine. So please just skip this post.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

...some Linux machines definitely need anti-virus software. Samba or NFS servers, for instance, may store documents in undocumented, vulnerable Microsoft formats, such as Word and Excel, that contain and propagate viruses. Linux mail servers should run AV software in order to neutralize viruses before they show up in the mailboxes of Outlook and Outlook Express users.[

Which is exactly what I said. ClamAV serves a very specific purpose and that's this one.

There are still no viruses for Linux specifically designed to break in to Linux, because it's not possible.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are still no viruses for Linux ... because it's not possible.

Here is just one example that proves your assertion wrong.

https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/slapper.shtml

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Apache and OpenSSL must be enabled and OpenSSL version must be 0.96d or older.

Right. Completely proven wrong.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if I'm reading this correct the vulnerability was patched before the worm got programmed and it peaked at 2000 machines infected when it targeted apache servers running openssl, which back in 2002 was basically any encrypted website.

Don't know how an AV would have helped there.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Simply refuting the BS claim that it's impossible for there to be a Linux virus.

This one existed, therefore the claim is false.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

The claim was within the context of AV software, not a general one.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mirai and other botnets, coin miners, ransomware... Do you think that malware makers just decided to ignore the billions of Linux servers and IoT devices that exist?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I agree with you, but, it is also true that the overwhelming majority of ransomwares affect windows https://www.statista.com/statistics/701020/major-operating-systems-targeted-by-ransomware/

Linux is not a significant target despite being so diffused

Edit. For those downvoting, windows server is ~20% of the server market and it is second in that stat. GNU/Linux distros such as rhel, debian and so on are almost 80% of server market and still there are no sufficient attacks reported to end up in that stat

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True, but the largest botnet in the world runs purely on Linux devices

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It targets router firmwares though... These bot farms do not usually target real gnu/Linux os, because it is easier and more effective to attack router firmwares that are not well configured by producers and telcoms, and are practically never upgraded.

Therefore they are not a real threat for standard mint or popOS user... Let alone gentoo users

Edit. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirai_(malware)