Advice Request Is FortiClient for Linux worth it?

[Threadripper]

FortiClient for Linux has nowhere near as many features as for Windows of course, but two of the four are suitable for home use (AntiVirus and Vulnerability Scan), is it worth trying?

 

[Zartarra]

Some time ago, I installed FortiClient on a test system. The installation was easy and it seems to did his work. Too bad it doesn't support the

Other anti-virusscanner for Linux:
- ClamAV (but it has a poor detection rate)
- Sophos AV (no problem with the installations. https://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-linux.aspx)
- Comodo (had problems to install it and needs some older libraries: Download Comodo Antivirus for Linux | Buy Best Linux Antivirus)

 

[bribon77]

If it is for domestic use from my point of view, it is not worth installing an AV in Linux, a waste of resources.

 

[shmu26]

The AVs for Linux do not provide realtime protection. They are only for scanning. Many of them don't even detect Linux malware, due to lack of appropriate definitions; they only detect Windows malware. So you can use them to prevent infecting Windows users, and to scan your Windows dual boot, but they won't protect your Linux installation.
If you want to scan your Linux, Clam might be a good choice -- at least it is made with Linux in mind.

 

[bribon77]

The AVs for Linux do not provide realtime protection. They are only for scanning. Many of them don't even detect Linux malware, due to lack of appropriate definitions; they only detect Windows malware. So you can use them to prevent infecting Windows users, and to scan your Windows dual boot, but they won't protect your Linux installation.
If you want to scan your Linux, Clam might be a good choice -- at least it is made with Linux in mind.

If you have Windows clients, it is good to have an AV to make sure you do not send anything infected, but if it is not it is not worth it.

 

[Lenny_Fox]

I tried ClamAV and SophosAV on my Manjaro linux dual Windows boot laptop Clam comes with a guI, Sophos not, but Sophos offers out of the box on-demand file scanning, while setting up ClamAV scanning takes soms steps. I decided to stat with Sophos, because it does kuch better with Windows based malware. The ln,y reason for me to install an AV on Linux is to prevent me zending infected files to friends on Windows, therefor I choose to keep Sophos

 

[Chri.Mi]

There is no reason for use av in linux... i doubt all those av can catch linux virus, that are realy lows. Take in consideration not all linux version are the same. For example some Linux distro have a big database from where u can chosen what software u wanna, and if them are rolling release the software is always update, so low chance to be exploited. Some others distro have low database and need more support from third party sources, and are periodic release.

 

[JakeXPMan]

If it is for domestic use from my point of view, it is not worth installing an AV in Linux, a waste of resources.

I agree, a Linux AV would be just fun time rather then needed protection ... unless you are storing large amounts of vital files and working daily on Linux. I'd not even bother, as a fresh install of Linux is very easy to come by and no key to activate.

 

[MacDefender]

I'm late to this party, but looking at my Fortigate protecting my server VLANs:

ironically Linux/Mirai ELF ARM malware is the most common thing hitting my network, which is funny because most of my web-facing servers are either FreeBSD or Windows Server.

I wouldn't say that a Linux AV is entirely worthless but I think Linux servers are more likely to be under attack compared to Linux desktops, which limits the value of something like a client side AV.


Interestingly ClamAV has almost no detection on any of these samples, which surprised me given its popularity in the Linux crowd.