Tasmanian Dept. of Education Wants Anti-Virus for Linux, OS X 396
An anonymous reader writes "One of Australia's largest government technology buyers, the Tasmanian Department of Education, has gone to market for a security vendor to supply anti-virus software for its 40,000-odd desktop PCs and laptops, as well as servers. But the department's not just running Windows — it runs Mac OS X and Linux as well, and has requested that whatever solution it buys must be able to run on those platforms as well. But have we reached the stage were Mac OS X and Linux even need third-party security software? It seems like most Mac and Linux users don't run it."
no (Score:3, Insightful)
no.
Passing on Viruses (Score:4, Insightful)
A computer can still pass on a virus even if it cannot directly infect you. It might not be your responsibility but will a child know this? If he forwards an attachment unwittingly or something?
Linux users and Mac users could accidentally infect a Windows user.
Last Resort (Score:4, Insightful)
AV software is not only for your own safety... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you exchange documents and files with other users, having anti-virus and anti-malware software or not is not only an issue for your own protection.
Even if you run on a system that you believe to be safe from those kinds of infections, you might spread it to other users if you ever pass on files that you get from others.
This might not be of any importance to you personally, but in a large organization it might be of vital importance that malicious software can't "hide" in unprotected systems of other flavours that it was designed for.
prophecy (Score:5, Insightful)
1 group will claim GNU/Linux doesn't need anti virus software.
2nd group will claim they use antivirus on their GNU/Linux already, but only to clean emails destined for MS Windows machines or to look after their Samba exported storage.
3rd group will say GNU/Linux needs AV software because it's only a matter of time before viruses (virii?) appear.
4th group will say viruses for GNU/Linux already exist and provide links to some sensationalist articles on the interwebs where researchers published some concepts.
5th group (partially composed of group 1 and 2) will claim they're not real viruses, but worms/snakes/butterflies/etc...
6th group will claim the threat aren't viruses but PPAs in ubuntu.
3rd/4th group will return saying it's all about users and not the OS. And because they're careful users, they've never in their life needed AV on their MS Windows.
Does that about cover that? Let the holy war begin...
Probably just a policy problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably just a policy issue. "We've put your AIX / HP-UX / Solaris server in". "What AV does it run?" "Er, it's running AIX / HP-UX / Solaris , we've not installed AV". "But our policy says we have to use product X or product Y to AV protect all our servers". "Yes, but you're not understan....." "Just install AV".
Re:Of Course (Score:2, Insightful)
You must work in IT support.
My personal experience is:
#1. For a technically sane, and security aware user, most antivirus software only exists to make the system hog slow.
#2. Antivirus software is used as a placebo to make users feel they are safer. If anything, I suspect it would make users feel less responsible for their own actions because some AV software is supposedly protecting them.
#3. How is a Linux user supposed to run AV? With WINE? I know there is clamav, but it's not intended for those "active monitoring/scanning" things you have on Windows. Maybe the "shell script" placebo* will work equally well at "educating users" if that's what you want. No point in making a system slow.
* http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2119134&cid=35997968 [slashdot.org]
Re:Passing on Viruses (Score:5, Insightful)
You're probably thinking of ClamAV http://www.clamav.net/ [clamav.net]
Re:Last Resort (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the Windows users I work with says the same thing. Like you, he can't provide any examples either.
And if you're talking about those instances of trojans that rely on social engineering, what anti-virus program can defend against a user who willingly types in an administrative password and installs the malware on his own?
Lets bash the sensible goverment! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, so we bash the govement for using windows, for using faulty antivirus software, for not using any antivirus software, for not using open source, for spending too much......
Now we bash them for asking for something SENSIBLE? Just because most linux/os x users dont run it doesn't mean its s a good idea -> Most windows users don't run antivirus software and use I.E. 6......
Now... if they want one. ClamAV does both linux and windows, not sure about OS X though.
Re:Last Resort (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the Windows users I work with says the same thing. Like you, he can't provide any examples either.
And if you're talking about those instances of trojans that rely on social engineering, what anti-virus program can defend against a user who willingly types in an administrative password and installs the malware on his own?
Well if we are excluding those...
There's 90% of Windows malware wiped out. The user is, always has been and will always be the biggest source of infection. Even in the Windows world and especially today when a patched Win 7 and Office suite aren't vulnerable to drive by infections.
I love how Mac fanboys need to move the goal posts to justify their positions. But here you go anyway.
http://about-threats.trendmicro.com/Search.aspx?language=us&p=OSX [trendmicro.com]
No doubt you have some wonderfully convenient excuse to ignore this.
Have fun.
Re:Passing on Viruses (Score:2, Insightful)
I take exception to:
Linux users and Mac users could accidentally infect a Windows user.
More accurately: "Linux users and Mac users could accidentally pass on a file that infects an ill-prepared Windows user."
Mac and Linux users don't infect Windows users. Windows users let themselves become compromised.
M$ supporters are pushing this (Score:4, Insightful)
The best way to deflect the idea that it is only Windows that has the basic vulnerability is to ensure that Linux and OSX users are forced to run AV too.
That way they can claim that the total cost of ownership on these platforms is ( artificially) higher.
It is also likely a case of the person working that factor then adding support to the lie by persuading his/her colleagues with the classic FUD:
"What if you omit this, and a virus that attacks these other OS infect us? Do you want the blame?"
What is actually needed is some education to users about best practices, detection of infections and how to establish a safety and testing regimen.
Re:Last Resort (Score:5, Insightful)
There's 90% of Windows malware wiped out. The user is, always has been and will always be the biggest source of infection. Even in the Windows world and especially today when a patched Win 7 and Office suite aren't vulnerable to drive by infections.
What does Windows have to do with anything, the statement was that there's "more OS X and Linux malware around then you might expect", which (at least to me) implies that this amount of malware is substantial enough to care about.
I love how Mac fanboys need to move the goal posts to justify their positions. But here you go anyway
Great, ram your point across by throwing stereotypes around, that's really going to help your argument /s
No doubt you have some wonderfully convenient excuse to ignore this.
No wonderfully convenient "excuse" is necessary here, because your 'list of OS X threats' is laughable and does nothing but disproving your own argument. In 10 years of OS X history, apparently only 43 pieces of malware have been identified, most of which are Trojans, which -in your own words- depend on the user as 'the biggest source of infection', and for which antivirus software completely unnecessary. If anything, that list proves that OS X is more or less immune to viruses and malware, and that a fully patched OS X install does not need antivirus, just common sense.
From your own signature:
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And what does calling someone a 'Mac fanboy' make you?
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
The DoD's reasoning is pretty straightforward. There are few to no "in the wild" viruses or trojans for Linux/Mac (several worms though), but data rarely stays in one platform in an interconnected world. We put virus protection on every platform so that whenever a document or program is introduced on the network it gets scanned. That way if it has malware in it, even Windows malware on a Linux/Mac system, it's caught early. Just because I first put the document on a Linux system doesn't mean it's going to stay on a Linux system.
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
We put virus protection on every platform so that whenever a document or program is introduced on the network it gets scanned. That way if it has malware in it, even Windows malware on a Linux/Mac system, it's caught early. Just because I first put the document on a Linux system doesn't mean it's going to stay on a Linux system.
It's like getting a flu shot -- you're not only protecting yourself from the flu, but others as well.
Ok, but that's not workable in the real world (Score:4, Insightful)
teach users proper data hygiene Totally impossible. They don't care and you can't make them care.
Totally easy: 1: Here's not how to be an idiot. 2: If you're an idiot, you're fired without severance or health benefits.
Can you tell me how I can fire my boss? There's basically nobody above him in the organization, so I'm just wondering how you'd apply your totally easy method in this case?
There are also the cases where an employee is main rain-maker for the company, but hasn't a clue how to keep from getting malware on their computer. A law firm is not going to fire an attorney who brings in $30 million a year just because they keep getting malware on their pc, for example.