Gizmo's Freeware Forum

Gizmo's Freeware Forum (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/)
-   Linux (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/linux/)
-   -   Anti-Malware Scanners (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/linux/2195-anti-malware-scanners.html)

MidnightCowboy 22. Oct 2009 07:48 PM

Anti-Malware Scanners
 
I decided to start a separate thread for this because no matter what the need may or may not be for Linux scanners people will use them (including me) either for their own valid reasons or just because it makes them feel safer.

This especially since several of the big guns have applications available as well as dear old Clam.

Having been a severe critic of The Windows version of BitDefender I now admit to liking the Unices version a lot. It's giving no issues at all on my x64 Ubuntu 9.04 and scans quickly. I've opted to leave mine running in the background as I love the idea of just being able to drop files and folders onto the desktop drop icon for immediate scanning. Also, being a Windows nasties hunter if someone turns up with a pendrive while I'm booted into Linux I can still wack it in and scan it.

Has anyone got experiences here with any of the other available options?

wdhpr 23. Oct 2009 01:32 AM

Hello MC

E-Mail protection
I'm using thunderbird However Clam doesnt work with thunderbird. It appears AmaVisd (email scanner) works well with thunderbird.
AmaVisd works with clam and thunderbird, but AmaVisd wont install with bit defender running in the background.
Will Clam and Bit Defender work together?
Bit defender would not install with clam running in the background. However clam would install with bit defender running in the background.

LOL....see what you started

And top things off most of the free malware software is 32 bit and will not work on 64 bit linux platforms.

Quote:

Has anyone got experiences here with any of the other available options?

Cheers
Wdhpr

MidnightCowboy 23. Oct 2009 01:42 AM

Naturally I'm making some assumptions here because a lot of this is still new ground to me too but..... presumably the only worry about emails would be attachments and only then from a Windows perspective. With the drop box for BitDefender on the screen you could just drop any attachments into it. They scan instantantly. Whatever is in there (presumably) won't harm your Linux system but if found to be malware would prevent you from passing it on to other windows users.

Does any of this make sense, or am I getting it wrong? :)

wdhpr 23. Oct 2009 01:53 AM

Quote:

With the drop box for BitDefender on the screen you could just drop any attachments into it.
Easy to get wrapped around the axle. Your assumptions are correct. However I will continue to seek the automatic solution. "wink"

Cheers
Wdhpr

Matapan1969 28. Oct 2009 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy (Post 15021)
I decided to start a separate thread for this because no matter what the need may or may not be for Linux scanners people will use them (including me) either for their own valid reasons or just because it makes them feel safer.

This especially since several of the big guns have applications available as well as dear old Clam.

Having been a severe critic of The Windows version of BitDefender I now admit to liking the Unices version a lot. It's giving no issues at all on my x64 Ubuntu 9.04 and scans quickly. I've opted to leave mine running in the background as I love the idea of just being able to drop files and folders onto the desktop drop icon for immediate scanning. Also, being a Windows nasties hunter if someone turns up with a pendrive while I'm booted into Linux I can still wack it in and scan it.

Has anyone got experiences here with any of the other available options?

I have tried the following scanners only for on demand scanning:

- Rootkit Hunter
- ChkRootkit
- ClamAv
- Avast for Linux
- BitDefender for Unices


The first three are available in the repositories while the last two must be downloaded from the producers websites.

I'm not impressed by ClamAv while Rootkit Hunter and Chkrootkit are fast and targeting well identified malware.

Avast is fine but the signature update is not incremental and takes some time.
BitDefender (thanks MC!) works well and the GUI is nice. Update also is faster then Avast. If working on background, in my system it consumes about 125 mb of RAM and therefore I have disabled this option.
I have experienced with both Avast and BitDefender that several files can not be scanned because files system... and I don't know how to solve it.

I'm not concerned about malware in Linux and I use these scanners once a month or so on or to scan the Windows partition.

Regarding the firewall, I use UFW (and Gufw as GUI) which is very simple (like Windows XP firewall). I have also used Firestarter but I stopped because it takes about 50 mb RAM more than UFW and it's no longer developed.

MidnightCowboy 28. Oct 2009 10:47 AM

Thanks for your personal insight into these things.

Regarding the files which won't scan, are these being skipped during a full scan or will they not scan individually either? Have you tried dragging them onto the BitDefender 'drop icon'?

On my system memory use is not really an issue as I have 4G to play with and Ubuntu uses only a fraction of Vista anyway. I share your point about Firestarter but found the events window so much easier to use and read for reference purposes rather than having to delve into the system log. Maybe I should have spent more time with ufw, or am I missing an easier way to see active connections and blocked events with this one?

Matapan1969 28. Oct 2009 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy (Post 15096)
Thanks for your personal insight into these things.

Regarding the files which won't scan, are these being skipped during a full scan or will they not scan individually either? Have you tried dragging them onto the BitDefender 'drop icon'?

On my system memory use is not really an issue as I have 4G to play with and Ubuntu uses only a fraction of Vista anyway. I share your point about Firestarter but found the events window so much easier to use and read for reference purposes rather than having to delve into the system log. Maybe I should have spent more time with ufw, or am I missing an easier way to see active connections and blocked events with this one?

Thanks for your comments!

The files are skipped during the full scan, I have not tried to drop them in the "drop icon".
Regarding Firestarter you are perfectly right, for me the only reason to use it is the log record. I have not found an easy way to look at the log in UFW, hopefully this point will be improved with the next releases.

wdhpr 30. Oct 2009 01:44 AM

Quote:

Regarding the files which won't scan, are these being skipped during a full scan or will they not scan individually either? Have you tried dragging them onto the BitDefender 'drop icon'?
I have not had this same experience. However I have noticed significant slow downs during the scan when bitdefender is scanning widows software being used with Wine. Outside of that all files are scanned.

Cheers
Wdhpr

wdhpr 26. May 2010 01:15 AM

BitDefender for Linux can be registered for another year
 
For those of us that have bitdefender for linux installed and if your original registration has expired. You can renew it for free for another year.

You will have to register at the website and they will send you another key :)

I like the dropbox to check files that you have downloaded. You can also do a system scan.

Cheers
Wdhpr


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.