Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
- Has anyone here gone though such a procedure and got good arguments
against the need for anti-virus?
There is no good argument against running malware detection on any sever.
- Alternatively - what linux anti-virus (oh, the shame of typing this
word combination :() do you use which doesn't affect our systems performance too much.
CLAMAV works well.
What do you do with clamav on a linux server?
You scan the server for malware.
There is nothing special about LINUX here. The whole "don't run services as root" business is just so much noise. It isn't about protecting the *server* it is about protecting the *data* which is accesses [hopefully] by services which are *not* root. It is about the data and the clients that connect to the server.
I've seen CLAMAV find malware on web servers (maybe it isn't common... because no one is checking). Someone's crappy PHP code [is there any other kind?] allows malware to get injected into, and served, from the server. No root access anywhere, or required. It isn't about protecting the OS or the system, it is about protecting the data, the applications [from exploit], and the end-users [so the server isn't an attack vector]. Assuming none of the services on you server can be exploited is just wrong headed; and the exploiter does not need to "own" the server (aka have root) in order to do mischief. Access to your data is probably more valuable than whacking your server.
The mantra "LINUX doesn't suffer from malware" is just bollocks. Lots of malware is served from LINUX servers. Scanning a server for signatures is just another way to proof (not prove) that a server has not been compromised and that data accessed by the server is secure. Which is what things like PCI/DSS is about - protecting the *data*.
What do you think it protects you against on a linux server?
"against a linux server?" ?