First thing you need to do is get rid of Norton and install a real and modern anti-virus such as NOD32.
Norton used to be good but has turned into bloatware that not only slows a system down, it doesn't find all the bad stuff any more.

Of course, letting the Windows machinesÂ* blow up does have its merits.Â* 8^)

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/26/2012 05:02 PM, Sam Sebastian wrote:


I run a ubuntu (10.04) server on my LAN and generally its off and does

not usually do anything while its on except for me to mess around with

samba and cups and the like. I was told that it would be a good idea for

me to put some kind of anti virus on it. I was wondering if this is

necessary? There are 3-4 other windows 7 computers on the network. And

all of them have anti-virus installed on them (Norton IIRC)



And what about a general linux desktop computer, I know that there are

*some* viruses out there for linux but the most common reason that I'm

cited for putting anti-virus on it is to stop it from giving viruses to

the other computers in the network.



And if so which anti-virus would you recommend?




I'd recommend doing nothing. Just let the Windows machines catch fire and burn to the ground. Then the users would be asking what to do?? <grins evilly> ...then you install Linux for them. No more worries. You don't see google installing anti-virus for gmail, do you?




If you DID install anti-virus and it failed, would it then be YOUR fault? You imply some sort of warranty and acknowledgement of responsibility by installing the anti-virus (clamav?) and everything thereafter is your fault. If Norton worked, there would be no problem, right? Ric








--

My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:

"There are two Great Sins in the world...

..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.

Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.

http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html



--

ubuntu-users mailing list

ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users



--
"If there is anything that can divert the land of my birth from its
current stampede into the Stone Age, it is the widespread dissemination
of the thoughts and perceptions that Robert Heinlein has been selling as
entertainment since 1939." --- Spider Robinson

“Your silver has become dross, your drink diluted with
water. Your rulers are rebels, and companions of thieves; every one
loves a bribe, and chases after rewards. They do not defend the orphan, nor does the widow’s plea come before them� (Isaiah 1:22–23).

"... Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of
mankind,Â* none has been more effective than that which deludes them with
paper money."

Daniel Webster





--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 05:02 PM, Sam Sebastian wrote:
>>
>> I run a ubuntu (10.04) server on my LAN and generally its off and does
>> not usually do anything while its on except for me to mess around with
>> samba and cups and the like. I was told that it would be a good idea for
>> me to put some kind of anti virus on it. I was wondering if this is
>> necessary? There are 3-4 other windows 7 computers on the network. And
>> all of them have anti-virus installed on them (Norton IIRC)
>>
>> And what about a general linux desktop computer, I know that there are
>> *some* viruses out there for linux but the most common reason that I'm
>> cited for putting anti-virus on it is to stop it from giving viruses to
>> the other computers in the network.
>>
>> And if so which anti-virus would you recommend?
>
>
> I'd recommend doing nothing. Just let the Windows machines catch fire and
> burn to the ground. Then the users would be asking what to do?? <grins
> evilly> ...then you install Linux for them. No more worries. You don't see
> google installing anti-virus for gmail, do you?
>
> If you DID install anti-virus and it failed, would it then be YOUR fault?
> You imply some sort of warranty and acknowledgement of responsibility by
> installing the anti-virus (clamav?) and everything thereafter is your fault.
> If Norton worked, there would be no problem, right? Ric

You hear this a lot. It's seriously bad advice.

There is a reason you DO in fact monitor security on your Linux
systems. They are not immune to things like malicious code in the form
of trojans, worms, etc. Root kits. All of the common "AV" solutions
for Linux look for these as well. If you really need to be secure,
things like App Armor or SELinux should be investigated. Also, Windows
machines are not the only vector for these things to affect Linux
hosts. bind, sendmail, postfix, and several other programs can be
exploited in ways that give others control of your box. Having a basic
set of sane safeguards in place (like file integrity monitoring,
security scanning, clamav, etc.) isn't a half bad start.

There's a reason why PCI mandates these for Linux boxes as well as
Windows boxes, and it's NOT just that the majority of their audience
are people running Windows.

--
Regards,
W. Scott Lockwood

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 04/26/2012 05:31 PM, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Ric Moore<wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/26/2012 05:02 PM, Sam Sebastian wrote:


I run a ubuntu (10.04) server on my LAN and generally its off and does
not usually do anything while its on except for me to mess around with
samba and cups and the like. I was told that it would be a good idea for
me to put some kind of anti virus on it. I was wondering if this is
necessary? There are 3-4 other windows 7 computers on the network. And
all of them have anti-virus installed on them (Norton IIRC)

And what about a general linux desktop computer, I know that there are
*some* viruses out there for linux but the most common reason that I'm
cited for putting anti-virus on it is to stop it from giving viruses to
the other computers in the network.

And if so which anti-virus would you recommend?



I'd recommend doing nothing. Just let the Windows machines catch fire and
burn to the ground. Then the users would be asking what to do??<grins
evilly> ...then you install Linux for them. No more worries. You don't see
google installing anti-virus for gmail, do you?

If you DID install anti-virus and it failed, would it then be YOUR fault?
You imply some sort of warranty and acknowledgement of responsibility by
installing the anti-virus (clamav?) and everything thereafter is your fault.
If Norton worked, there would be no problem, right? Ric


You hear this a lot. It's seriously bad advice.


Well, he could let the windows clients crash and burn, install Linux to
them, then secretly add your fixes while they aren't looking. It's a
thought (tongue-in-cheek) Ric



--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

> evilly> ...then you install Linux for them. No more worries. You don't see
> google installing anti-virus for gmail, do you?
>

Google does run an anti-virus for Gmail.


John

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users