Linux

48715 readers

1850 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Will antivirus be more significant on Linux desktop after this xz-util backdoor? (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I understand that no Operating System is 100% safe. Although this backdoor is likely only affects certain Linux desktop users, particularly those running unstable Debian or testing builds of Fedora (like versions 40 or 41), **Could this be a sign that antivirus software should be more widely used on Linux desktops? ** ( I know this time is a zero-day attack)

What if, malicious code like this isn't discovered until after it's released to the public? For example, imagine it was included in the initial release of Fedora 40 in April. What if other malware is already widespread and affects more than just SSH, unlike this specific case?

My point is,

Many people believe that Linux desktops don't require antivirus software.
Antivirus can at least stop malware once it's discovered.
Open-source software is protected by many parties, but a backdoor like this one, which reportedly took 2 years to plan and execute, raises my concern about being more cautious when choosing project code maintainers.
Linux desktops will likely be targeted by more attacks as they become more popular.

IMO, antivirus does not save stupid people(who blindly disable antivirus // grant root permission) but it does save some lazy people.

OS rely heavily on users practicing caution and up-to-date(both knowledge and the system). While many users don't follow tech news, they could unknowingly be running (this/any) malware without ever knowing. They might also neglect system updates, despite recommendations from distro maintainers.

This is where antivirus software can be useful. In such cases, users might be somewhat protected once the backdoor signature is added to the antivirus database.

Thankfully, the Linux community and Andres Freund responded quickly to this incident.

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

[–] onlinepersona 8 points 8 months ago

The maintainer of xz was pressured into adding a new, unknown maintainer because he was alone and most likely unpaid. Had this critical piece of software been well-funded and the maintainer well-compensated, he probably never would've added the maintainer.

Regardless, I'm not sure how an antivirus would help here. This was a component upon which many others were built. How would this have been detected heuristically? Maybe somebody with a deeper understanding can also weigh in whether SELinux could've helped here, but if it's a lib*, I guess not.

IMO the major problem is upstream: fund critical components. If you work in an org using opensource (and I bet you do), try and get them to set aside some kind of budget for opensource projects they use. For example a simple 100€ distributed across selected projects every month or every year. Or more, whatever.. just something.

Also probably reproducible builds would help. The distributed archives should not differ from that of multiple build services.