Linux Myths Series: Linux Doesn't Need an Antivirus (2020)
The page outlines some security issues of Linux Desktop. It doesn&#x27;t explain how an antivirus would mitigate them. It just ends with<p><i>&gt; As you can see, having a decent antivirus in Linux is not that a crazy idea.</i><p>Well, actually, it is far from obvious. Antivirus software even on Windows is commonly the thing that makes the system more vulnerable, not less. This page however uses the word &quot;antivirus&quot; as &quot;a magical piece of software that protects the computer against viruses&quot;. How does it do that?<p>The idea that to fix a security issue you should install an additional program which &quot;increases&quot; security is dubious.<p>The problems listed on the page are real and we should tackle them. However, I don&#x27;t think that an &quot;antivirus&quot; is the right solution. Instead security should be treated in a systematic way, not something that you add to a system, after it&#x27;s done. I think we should invest in, among others, sandboxing techniques, move away from Xorg, write system software in memory-safe languages.<p>Security is not an app to be installed. It&#x27;s an architectural problem.<p>It&#x27;s also ironic that most of the points listed on the page apply equally well to antivirus software. Namely, are distro maintainers qualified to verify antivirus code? What if an antivirus gets compromised? An open source antivirus could also get code submissions with cleverly hidden backdoors. And what if it&#x27;s proprietary? (Most of them are.) They also commonly run with elevated privileges (the point about sudo).