AV-Test Lab: Linux User Without Virus

The amount of malware for Linux is still very limited, especially compared to Windows. Nevertheless, even Linux systems with malware become infected. In addition, Linux systems are often used in Windows environments and thus come into contact with Windows Malware. Astute Linux users, however, need to install a virus scanner, according to the German test lab AV-Test.

AV-Test decided 16 different security packages for Linux with both Linux and Windows Malware to test an Ubuntu system.The results are disconcerting for some products, because they are by letting 85% of the Windows Malware and up to 75% of the Malware Linux. Eight of the sixteen security suites able to detect between 99.7% and 99.9% of the 12,000 common Windows Malware. Only Symantec scores 100%. McAfee and Comodo scoring with 85.1% and 83% respectively lower.Much worse are the results from Dr. Web (67.8%), F-Prot (22.1%) and ClamAV (15.3%).

Tested for the second part of the test was 900 malware instances for Linux. Kaspersky'm here solely to detect all malware, followed by ESET with 99.7%. AVG scores 99%, followed by the server versions of Kaspersky and Avast that detect more than 98% of malware. Symantec, which identified all Windows Malware recognizes 97.2% of Linux Malware. The other products scored less well, with ClamAV, McAfee, F-Prot Comodo and finish at the bottom. The detection rates lie between 66.1% and 23%.

Linux And Malware

The question remains to what extent it is necessary for Linux users to install a virus. According to AV-Test, the number of Trojans for Linux has increased recently, but they are of poor quality. This is according to the test lab because attackers are aware of good security practices that Linux offers. There is then also especially the ignorance of users use, for example, which become infected by operational errors.

The most common way to become infected by Malware Linux is by installing software updates or via third parties, according to AV-Test. The software will ask during the installation to temporary root privileges. If the user allows this software to the system will be manipulated and attackers can install a backdoor on the system and is it part of a botnet.

According to AV-Test, most Linux users believe that they are one of the safest systems available use. "This statement is true if you only look at the system and leave the rest aside." Insecure third-party software and user errors can ultimately ensure that a Linux system, like Windows and Mac with malware gets infected.

Research by anti-virus companies shows that many infected Linux servers that are part of a botnet. Linux-based botnets often remain even longer operational because the servers do not use security software, unlike Windows Servers where this is the case. And if there is already software installed are often the wrong products. "In many Linux Forums free Comodo products, ClamAV and F-Prot be recommended to home users. This is not good advice", says AV-Test.

The test shows that home better for the free versions of Sophos or Bitdefender can choose. For server systems, there is the free scanner from AVG. ESET is as a whole out on top, followed by Symantec and Kaspersky. For servers are Kaspersky, AVG and Avast recommended.

Virus Scanner Necessary?

Or Linux Users must install a virus is ultimately to their own behavior. AV-Test says that security suites are only a second line of defense. The main security is in fact the user. Anyone who loves his system up-to-date, no unnecessary ports opens, only install software from trusted sources, prevents the browser to run active content and not open just e-mail attachments will do when it comes to Linux Malware no worries make, according to the testing lab.

Researcher: Most Mac Malware Is Hopelessly Behind

Most malware for Mac OS X is hopelessly behind compared to Windows malware, says researcher Patrick Wardle . "To draw a comparison, it is almost true Windows malware 10 to 15 years ago," so let him opposite Threat Post know. Most specimens Wardle encounter are individual files that are easy to find via the Activity Monitor.

The researcher is concerned about the Mac malware is unknown and unnoticed by the sluggishness of advanced testing tools. Where Windows has advanced and aggressive tools to detect malware, which are not for OS X, allowing sophisticated threats are missed possible. Therefore he will showcase at the upcoming Black Hat conference in Las Vegas how "elegant" Mac malware is making, which can evade anti-malware measures of OS X and third-party security tools.

So Wardle shows how Gatekeeper is remotely bypass to from unsigned code downloaded and run and how to get round all the popular virus scanners and firewalls are simple via malware. However, the investigator concludes with several free security tools that can detect or even prevent advanced Mac malware. "With these tools, we ensure that our computers are better protected against both current and future Mac malware."

AV Comparatives Test Lab: Experienced Mac User To A Virus Scanner

Experienced Mac users can watch what they download a virus scanner, according to the Austrian test lab AV-Comparatives . The test lab decided to test ten virus for Mac OS X on the detection of malware. In addition, specimens were taken for both Mac and Windows, because the Mac virus indicate that they can also detect Windows malware.

The reason is that Mac computers can also get in touch with Windows malware, for example in the case of e-mail attachments or USB sticks. What is striking about the test, the amount of malware which has been tested. In the case of Mac malware is about 105 newly discovered specimens, while the most prevalent malware specimens were used for Windows. In other tests of AV-Comparatives for Windows be used thousands of malware examples, but the number for Mac is so low that the counter remains stabbing at 105.

Of the ten scanners able to detect seven parcels 100% of all Mac malware, while a similar number this occurs in the Windows malware. Avast, AVG, ESET, Kaspersky and Sophos are the scanners that detect all malware in both areas. When it comes to Windows malware are the only F-Secure (28%) and Intego (50%) who stabbing drop in the detection of Windows malware.Meanwhile, all the anti-virus companies have their signatures updated to missed malware are detected.

The question remains whether Mac users now need a virus scanner. "Experienced and responsible Mac users to be careful with the programs they install and where they get which can reasonably argue that they do not risk running Mac malware," said AV-Comparatives. The lab says that users who are not experts, children and users with regular software experiment there can take advantage of to use a Mac virus scanner.

18 Virus Scanners For Linux Systems Tested

The Austrian test lab AV-Comparatives tested for the first virus for Linux. According to the test organ Linux is often considered a more secure platform than Windows, but does exist malware for Linux. In addition, Linux systems are often used as a file server, and can therefore come into contact with Windows Malware.

By installing a virus scanner can this malware are detected and thus prevent Windows computers become infected. The test report indicates AV-Comparatives also explain why so few Linux malware in circulation. That would relate to the large number of Linux Kernels and Linux distributions. The large number of different software configurations makes it more difficult for an attacker to produce malware that is compatible with a large part of the configurations.

Another factor that AV-Comparatives is pointing to is the small market share of Linux, which makes no lucrative target for attackers. This low proportion may also explain the small number of virus scanners for Linux compared to Windows. Unlike an earlier test of Virus Bulletin , AV-Comparatives decided not to test with malware but only to see the operation and features of the programs. For example, for each program discussed the installation and user interface.