TL;DR - What are you running as a means of “antivirus” on Linux servers?

I have a few small Debian 12 servers running my services and would like to enhance my security posture. Some services are exposed to the internet and I’ve done quite a few things to protect the services and the hosts. When it comes to “antivirus”, I was looking at ClamAV as it seemed to be the most recommended. However, when I read the documentation, it stated that the recommended RAM was at least 2-4 gigs. Some of my servers have more power than other but some do not meet this requirement. The lower powered hosts are rpi3s and some Lenovo tinys.

When I searched for alternatives, I came across rkhunter and chrootkit, but they seem to no longer be maintained as their latest release was several years ago.

If possible, I’d like to run the same software across all my servers for simplicity and uniformity.

If you have a similar setup, what are you running? Any other recommendations?

P.S. if you are of the mindset that Linux doesn’t need this kind of protection then fine, that’s your belief, not mine. So please just skip this post.

    • Chobbes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be honest, antivirus software is just not really a security tool. If you’re at the point where malicious software is running on your server you’ve already lost and it’s hard to know what extent the damage will be. Having proper isolation is much more important (something which, tbh, Linux isn’t quite as great at as we’d like to think, at least not with additional effort… mobile operating systems seem to take the isolation of applications a lot more seriously). You could maybe argue that the anti virus software is useful for monitoring, but I’d rather have some stronger guarantees that my application isn’t going to take my lunch money and private keys than a notice a day later that something sketchy is on my machine… I won’t flat out say a virus scanner is completely useless, because of course you can contrive of scenarios where one could be helpful, but they’re kind of dubious.

      Also yeah, ClamAV afaik isn’t really used like a typical windows antivirus. It’s mostly used on mail servers to scan email attachments. It’s not necessarily even looking for “Linux viruses”.

    • lal309@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay sure same thing as Windows. If you aren’t reckless with the things you install and run then you are likely fine BUT there’s always a chance. All it takes is one slip up. Same logic as having a lock in the door knob and a deadbolt. By your logic (and many others), the lock on the door knob is sufficient and that may be okay with you BUT I’m gonna put a deadbolt on too just in case.

      We can argue about this all day long. You will have valid points and so will I.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        But would you put a deadbolt on your garage door? Or on your fridge door? IMO, arguing by analogy here just obfuscates the points – your servers aren’t physical doorways with locks, and comparing them just confuses the issue.

        Can you explain what added security an antivirus package would offer for a Linux server? I haven’t done much with Linux administration, mostly just using Docker images for stuff at work.

        I’m not a super Linux expert or anything, but I do grok tech, and I’m curious about this topic.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Simple: Computers are not doors with locks. Antivirus is not a deadbolt, and IMO it’s really misleading to compare them. You’re trying to tell people in this thread that you need AV on Linux, against consensus, “because security”. I still don’t understand why you think it’s necessary. What’s your threat model? How does AV improve security on your servers in a way that a firewall doesn’t?

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The core problem with this approach is that antivirus scanning is generally based on signature recognition of malicious binaries. Behavior-based antivirus scanning mostly doesn’t work and tends to generate a lot of false positives. No freely available antivirus is going to have a signature library that is kept up to date enough to be worth the effort of running it on Linux - most vulnerabilities are going to be patched long before a free service gets around to creating a signature for malware that exploits those vulnerabilities, at which point the signature would be moot. If you want antivirus that is kept up to date on a weekly or better basis, you’re going to have to pay for a professional service.

    That said, there are other, simpler (and probably more effective) options for hardening your systems:

    • Firewall - if your servers are dedicated to specific services and you don’t plan on adding many more applications, you should be able to tighten up their firewalls to have only the ports they need open and nothing else. If network security is a priority, you should start with this.
    • Application Whitelisting - prevent unrecognized applications from running. There are more options for this on Windows (including the builtin Applocker), but there are some AWL options for Linux. It’s a lot easier to recognize the things that you do want to run than all of the things that you don’t want to run.
    • Secure OS - I assume you’re using Debian because it’s familiar, but it is a general-purpose OS with a broad scope. Consider switching to a more stripped-down variant like Alpine Linux (it can be installed on a Pi).
  • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Behavior-based antivirus is extremely difficult, failure-prone, and almost entirely unnecessary because of how secure Linux is, so they don’t exist to my knowledge. Signature-based antivirus is basically useless because any security holes exploited by a virus are patched upstream rather than waiting for an antivirus to block it. ClamAV focuses on Windows viruses, not Linux ones, so it can be a signature-based antivirus, but not many people run an email server accessed by Windows devices or other similar services that require ClamAV, so not many people use it, and nobody made any alternatives.

    If you’re worried about security, focus on hardening and updates, not antiviruses.

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, I think we can wrap this up: OP started with “I don’t want to be convinced of the predominant oppinion about security” and kept their word.
    OP: You got your answer. There is no alternative to ClamAV. ClamAV is open source so it will always be slower than apt update in fixing vulnerabilities.
    You can wonder why the whole community that created tons and tons of cool shit for Linux with armies of talented people with way more IT knowledge than all of us combined didn’t dedicate their time to Viruses. You can ask yourself how a virus would even get on your server… or you can not. Your choice. But the answer is: There is no alternative to ClamAV and ClamAV is set up mainly to detect Windows-Viruses that get spread by Mail-Attachments and the like.

    • Dagamant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could fork ClamAV and call it OysterAV then there would be a less maintained alternative

  • adamth0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I also use ClamAV, but only in specific circumstances, such as when a Linux server will be hosting end-user files. Perhaps a SAMBA server with a file share, or a web server which accepts user uploads.
    In those cases, I might want to have it monitor the relevant part of the disk, but I also need to make sure my web application won’t fall over when the file it just accepted is unceremoniously ripped away from it. You can test that out using the EICAR file as your payload.
    On a jump box, I might also have it turned on for scanning user home directories, by including /home, and then excluding any home directories for applications and daemons which might not deal well with having their IOPS nuked or delayed.

  • beerclue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would recommend just setting up iptables & crowdsec. Open only the ports your services need, and add the relevant plugins to crowdsec. Nothing should come through.

    If you have services that allow people to upload files, that’s a different story.

    • lal309@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am running SMB although it’s not publicly available and setup with specific users having specific access to specific shares.

      Good note on crowdsec

  • Alami@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am not a expert in Linux, and I mostly rely on very strong passwords. I also discovered recently basic stuff like changing the default SSH port. Anyone knows of implementation of 2FA on Linux?

    • ChillPill@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If at all possible, do not expose things like ssh, RDP, etc to the internet. Use traditional VPN or something like tail scale. Just because ssh is on a different port than normal doesnt mean an attacker couldn’t figure out that your running ssh on port 335.

      • Alami@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well fail2ban went from very active to very quiet. It is definitely worth not leaving 22 (when opening ssh is a must for different reasons)

    • lal309@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not sure this is what I’m looking for as it appears to be an XDR SIEM vendor.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what modern endpoint security is, really. Traditional AV is dead. There are far too many people making malware for file signatures or heuristics to keep up. Instead, you want to look for behavior on the system and on the network. For example, if a program starts reading every file it can find on the network, and changing then from their current formats to unreadable blobs, that’s probably ransomware and should be stopped. Plain old AV probably won’t catch it on the client because of how frequently it gets modified (plus all the various evasion techniques), nor on the server because nothing unusual is running on the server.

  • nexusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are none. ClamAV is the only one there is, because it has a very specific and narrow purpose. There are no viruses for Linux.

    Chrootkit and rkhunter are also built for very specific things (detecting rootkits - or making them) and are not designed to protect, they are designed to analyse.

    My writing here also isn’t specifically to OP, but to all others that may find this thread - Anti Virus for Linux is BS and unless you are running SMB and still have lots of Windows in your network, it’s absolutely not needed, especially if you follow the basics (like not doing stuff as root, using sudo and not giving out any system rights).

      • Chobbes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        AFAIK this is not what happens on NixOS. Every package gets installed into a directory that’s a hash of its dependencies in the nix store, but there’s no special isolation or anything on NixOS (well, when the packages are built there’s some isolation, but that’s mostly to keep the builds honest). That said, NixOS is a little better than most distros about creating separate daemon users for services with different permissions, but I don’t think it’s done universally. I love NixOS and it has many benefits, but I don’t think this is one.

      • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its a rolling release, so will always have the most up to date and patched packages the fastest. That concept is the antivirus.

        Can’t infect your machine if the vulnerabilities are already fixed.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Now where do new vulnerabilities come from? 🤔 Oh that’s right - from new code. And how often does new code show up on Arch? Oh…

          • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Security concerns can vary between traditional Linux distributions and rolling release distributions.

            Traditional Linux Distributions:

            1. Stability: Traditional distributions like Ubuntu LTS tend to prioritize stability over the latest software updates. While this can reduce the risk of new software vulnerabilities, it may also mean that security patches for certain software components are not as up-to-date as in rolling releases.

            2. Delayed Updates: Security updates for software packages may take longer to reach users in traditional distributions because they go through a more extensive testing and validation process. This delay could potentially leave systems vulnerable for a longer period.

            3. Predictability: Traditional distributions have predictable release cycles, making it easier to plan and apply security updates. However, this predictability can also make it easier for attackers to anticipate when certain software versions will be in use.

            Rolling Release Distributions:

            1. Up-to-Date Software: Rolling releases like Arch Linux or Manjaro provide the latest software updates as soon as they are available. While this ensures access to new security features and patches quickly, it can also introduce new bugs and vulnerabilities.

            2. Frequent Updates: Rolling releases typically require more frequent updates, which can be time-consuming and potentially introduce compatibility issues if not managed properly.

            3. User Responsibility: Users of rolling releases have a greater responsibility to stay informed about security updates and apply them promptly. Failure to do so can leave systems vulnerable.

            4. Testing: Rolling releases often have a testing phase where updates are evaluated by the community before being rolled out to all users. This helps catch issues, but it can still result in occasional instability.

            In summary, the main security concern with traditional Linux distributions is the potential delay in receiving security updates, while rolling releases offer up-to-date software but may require more user vigilance and can occasionally introduce instability due to frequent updates. The choice between them should depend on your specific use case and your willingness to manage updates and stability.