a lot of the replies are just “you don’t need antivirus on Linux”
Which is completely true when using distros like Debian, Fedora, RHEL, OpenSuse, etc.
Arch (and its derivatives) are designed to be on the bleeding edge with ALL the paper cuts that come with it. It is absolutely not focused on stability or security. If you want those things then stick to Debian or Fedora Silverblue.
And the second you introduce npm to your system you can throw any semblance of security out the window, regardless of what your operating system is, and no antivirus is going to save you.
That being said, the fundamental security models between Linux and Windows are very different. And on Linux the overall impact will likely be far less damaging (technologically, not financially) than on Windows. Windows “security” is just a corporate marketing campaign.
npm, yes. Snap and flatpak? No. I’m not saying it’s impossible to get malware. The difference is that snapd and flatpak have various levels of process isolation that largely mitigates any potential issues.
The argument isn’t “Linux doesn’t have malware”, the argument is “you don’t need to run antivirus on Linux”. Those are two very different things.
Not even the best antivirus will protect you completely, at that point you need good computer hygiene.
Eh. Flatpak has the option for process isolation, but it kinda works similarly to how android apps have default permissions set and the packager can just go “nah, this gets FULL permissions” and unless you go look and change it yourself, the program isn’t restricted at all. I don’t use ubuntu/snapd so can’t speak to that.
There are more protections on flathub than the AUR for sure - the AUR is closer to just downloading random shit off the internet than a true repository. That said, it’s crazy to assign the vulnerabilities of the AUR to Arch as a whole… The Arch repos proper (and even Chaotic AUR) didn’t have problems during any of this.
Which is completely true when using distros like Debian, Fedora, RHEL, OpenSuse, etc.
Arch (and its derivatives) are designed to be on the bleeding edge with ALL the paper cuts that come with it. It is absolutely not focused on stability or security. If you want those things then stick to Debian or Fedora Silverblue.
And the second you introduce npm to your system you can throw any semblance of security out the window, regardless of what your operating system is, and no antivirus is going to save you.
That being said, the fundamental security models between Linux and Windows are very different. And on Linux the overall impact will likely be far less damaging (technologically, not financially) than on Windows. Windows “security” is just a corporate marketing campaign.
If you use snap, or flatpaks, or npm, or anything like that you run the same risks.
npm, yes. Snap and flatpak? No. I’m not saying it’s impossible to get malware. The difference is that snapd and flatpak have various levels of process isolation that largely mitigates any potential issues.
The argument isn’t “Linux doesn’t have malware”, the argument is “you don’t need to run antivirus on Linux”. Those are two very different things.
Not even the best antivirus will protect you completely, at that point you need good computer hygiene.
Eh. Flatpak has the option for process isolation, but it kinda works similarly to how android apps have default permissions set and the packager can just go “nah, this gets FULL permissions” and unless you go look and change it yourself, the program isn’t restricted at all. I don’t use ubuntu/snapd so can’t speak to that.
There are more protections on flathub than the AUR for sure - the AUR is closer to just downloading random shit off the internet than a true repository. That said, it’s crazy to assign the vulnerabilities of the AUR to Arch as a whole… The Arch repos proper (and even Chaotic AUR) didn’t have problems during any of this.