

The short life and hard times of a Linux virus (2005) - c-oreills
http://librenix.com/?inode=21

======
facorreia
This article fails to point that Linux system are usually attacked by malware
and rootkits, not by old-fashioned binary-file-modifying viruses.

For a recent account, see:

[http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/exclusive-ongoing-
ma...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/exclusive-ongoing-malware-
attack-targeting-apache-hijacks-20000-sites/)

------
colinhowe
Given the quantity of information like this out there, do people bother with
running anti-virus on Linux servers?

It feels like something that you'd do just to err on the safe side.

~~~
bediger4000
One word: "compliance". A lot of security standards demand that you run an
anti-virus regularly on your servers. At least the first version of PCI DSS
did, and it's MasterCard and Visa precursors did.

It's checklist items like "run an anti-virus" that make "compliance" into a
pudgy, flaccid, bad word.

------
mooism2
June 10, 2000 (Updated: July 30, 2005)

~~~
c-oreills
Updated title to reflect this. I got the link from
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus> so apparently it's still
considered relevant.

