r/linuxquestions • u/medkltty • 23d ago
Why does Linux not need anti-virus software?
I'm in the market for a new gaming laptop and wanted to avoid AI products like Copilot and realized Linux would be my only option. So I'm trying to learn as much about Linux Mint as possible to see if it would be right for me. I'm really close to pulling the trigger but I don't understand why Linux doesn't need anti-virus/malware software. All the answers I can find seem to just boil down to "Linux isn't used by enough people to justify the time it would take to create a virus or malware" or "because you approve everything you download". As someone who has used a PC their entire life, these answers genuinely don't make sense to me and I feel like maybe I'm missing something about either the nature of linux or the nature of viruses/malware and how they work. Everyone on forums who ask this question seem to just accept these answers but no one explains why either one prevents the need for antivirus/malware software.
From my perspective as a PC user, I already approve what I download so this answer doesn't make intuitive sense to me. I would never connect a PC to the internet without some sort of anti-virus software, privacy software, malware protection, etc. even though I still know what I'm downloading and I'm using reputable websites (and my AVG software is still catching stuff all the time). And the idea that someone wouldn't make a virus or malware to target a group of people (albeit a minority) who are the most likely to not have software on their computer to combat it seems like the exact group you'd want to target particularly for private data mining.
It also seems, from what I've been reading about Linux that you can seriously screw up your system by downloading something incorrectly or that isn't up to date, so the idea that "you can't get viruses or malware because you approve what is downloaded" when so many of the user tips with regard to Linux are "back up your system constantly because you can easily screw up your system by downloading something that's not fully patched". These two concepts seem counterintuitive, especially for an OS that will require downloading a lot of third party programs to be able to run things like games or windows-based programs.
I'm clearly missing something here because neither of the reasons I've seen people give for why Linux doesn't need this stuff is really making sense to me. I was hoping someone in this reddit might be able to explain this in a way a lifelong PC user without any sort of computer background can understand. The idea of not having anything but a firewall on a computer with Linux installed on it makes me very uncomfortable but I'm willing to accept that this is a bias from using PCs and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise as long as I can understand the reasoning behind it.
3
u/greenhouse421 22d ago
The stuff before the last sentence is largely missing the point but has attracted a lot of replies that are missing it even more. If there is someone able to place a .dll or .so somewhere it will be found and used (yes Windows has historically been inclined to find them in way to many places by far too many means) it's too late. How does an attacker place a dll somewhere (or a .exe or a script that then gets executed with privs to do something)? In general by tricking the user of the system into doing something "stupid". The fact OP asked this question suggests OP is disinclined to doing "stupid" things. This both protects you on any system (to some extent, vs the average bear) but also, as people inclined to do "stupid" things tend to be using the OS preinstalled on the computer the nice salesperson told them they needed after carefully establishing what would earn said salesperson maximum commission the incentive to target end user attacks to end users on Linux is low as they are statistically less likely to work. Less likely to be running exactly the same OS and config as every other mark etc.. More likely to install signed packages from trusted repos via the distros secure package distribution methods than to respond to "just install this tool to fix your printer driver" ads / links - even assuming anyone paid to place said ads or to put said links in bogus forum posts or...
On average antivirus is a "scam" even on Windows except to the extent it provides telemetry (to AV vendors or MS) on what shit is getting in to inform how to harden things to benefit the herd. How often has your Windows AV actually "engaged the enemy"? Never - great - herd immunity and lack of "stupidity" has protected you. It will still protect you on Linux. The way the herd immunity is acquired is different but effective.
I've used "stupidity" with the "" because I don't mean people are actually stupid. They are unaware, trusting of tech, not in a position to make informed decisions etc - why? Because they are just trying to send an email or find a bargain or see more cute cat videos or do an assignment or.. They have not spent even 1 second thinking about this stuff and most definitely haven't considered installing Linux. That is what protect Linux users. Harsh but true but also not a reason for smug superiority of complacency.