4 ms·

Good point but what is a good free antivirus for Linux?

eneville 6y ago
Used clamav a lot in the past, it prevented a lot of Windows viruses making it past qmail on to exchange. Yes, there have been times when distros have allowed things through, but that happens far less than malware getting through in a self service ecosystem. The only benefit I see is that AV may point out that you have software that needs updating. Is running AV on linux worth the downgrade performance that you'd get from dropping your CPU one or two generations and a couple of hours of battery life?
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  Oh yeah I used ClamAV in the past on Mac. It wasn't great though.
itvision 6y ago
Free or not-free - there are none at the moment. ClamAV last time I checked missed over 30% of in the wild malware which renders it pretty much useless. AV-Comparatives and VBulletin have long stopped testing it for this reason.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  Well there are some non-free ones. I know Cylance supports some linux distros, and so does McAfee. Maybe others too. The thing is I don't really want to use those. I use both in work, McAfee is ancient crufty old crap. Cylance is OK but since the takeover from Blackberry their product has gone downhill rapidly. Also, their Linux version is not available to consumers. Also, if I use one it'd have to be open source. And ideally free in money too, though I could compromise on that if it's not too expensive.
- sliken 6y ago
  Seems like when I look at the "top 10 anti-virus" type articles that a surprising number of them fail to find relatively common viruses.
LeoPanthera 6y ago
Why is it necessary for it to be free? Wouldn't you want your AV provider to be incentivized to keep it up to date? Some types of products should be paid.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  Well part of the reason I use Linux is because it's free.. I'd want an AV solution to be that too. Not just as in beer but as in speech too :) The speech part is pretty much mandatory for me. I'd pay for the service if it was decently priced.

Used clamav a lot in the past, it prevented a lot of Windows viruses making it past qmail on to exchange. Yes, there have been times when distros have allowed things through, but that happens far less than malware getting through in a self service ecosystem. The only benefit I see is that AV may point out that you have software that needs updating. Is running AV on linux worth the downgrade performance that you'd get from dropping your CPU one or two generations and a couple of hours of battery life?

GekkePrutser 6y ago
Oh yeah I used ClamAV in the past on Mac. It wasn't great though.

itvision 6y ago

Free or not-free - there are none at the moment. ClamAV last time I checked missed over 30% of in the wild malware which renders it pretty much useless. AV-Comparatives and VBulletin have long stopped testing it for this reason.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
Well there are some non-free ones. I know Cylance supports some linux distros, and so does McAfee. Maybe others too. The thing is I don't really want to use those. I use both in work, McAfee is ancient crufty old crap. Cylance is OK but since the takeover from Blackberry their product has gone downhill rapidly. Also, their Linux version is not available to consumers. Also, if I use one it'd have to be open source. And ideally free in money too, though I could compromise on that if it's not too expensive.
sliken 6y ago
Seems like when I look at the "top 10 anti-virus" type articles that a surprising number of them fail to find relatively common viruses.

LeoPanthera 6y ago

Why is it necessary for it to be free? Wouldn't you want your AV provider to be incentivized to keep it up to date? Some types of products should be paid.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
Well part of the reason I use Linux is because it's free.. I'd want an AV solution to be that too. Not just as in beer but as in speech too :) The speech part is pretty much mandatory for me. I'd pay for the service if it was decently priced.