Are anti-virus programs a real necessity?

[Aereshaa]

Originally Posted by Xav

It's not just Windows viruses are written for. Macs and Linux both suffer from viruses, albeit on a lesser scale, and even things like Xbox 360s have been subjected to viruses.

This is a common misconception. The simple fact is that on a unix-based OS, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a website to create executable files. A file must be chmod'd +x before it can EVER execute. Unix, when implemented properly (linux, bsd (which includes mac os X)) is effectively virus-proof. The only threat to a unix-based system is that of trojan programs, which can easily be detected. And even if I did execute a virus, it would only be able to corrupt MY files, and not system files or others whose permissions prevent my userid from editing them.

for more info, try:
File system permissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note to new Linux users: No antivirus needed
The short life and hard times of a Linux virus
Linux vs. Windows Viruses

... that seems enough.
Ha, wow, I usually don't cite sources.

[MeTh0Dz]

Unix, when implemented properly (linux, bsd (which includes mac os X)) is effectively virus-proof.

That is simply not correct. I will find some sources on viruses that have appeared on these systems, because they have.

A List of Linux Viruses... Linux malware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mac Virus Links...
Macs no longer immune to viruses - Security - MSNBC.com

Viruses and the Mac FAQ
If you don't want to read that entire thing ^^^, it says there are about 40 known Mac OS viruses.

Mac Viruses By The Numbers - Word Macro: 553, Classic Mac: 26, OS X: Zero || The Mac Observer
This site says that McAfee has 612 virus in their library, then they do some figuring and say there may be as little as 26 actual viruses though, as a result of hoaxes and other things.

[Xav]

And to back up mine and Methodz's statements, I read in a computer magazine the information that I posted. All popular operating systems are open to malware - the most popular receives the most attacks, because lots of people use it.

[TcM]

Yup, all Operating systems are vulnerable. It's impossible, everything has flaws, bugs, security issues etc...

[Xav]

Windows is not attacked more than Macs because it is more vulnerable. It is attacked because 90% of the world uses Windows, so attacks have more impact.

[TcM]

Originally Posted by Xav

Windows is not attacked more than Macs because it is more vulnerable. It is attacked because 90% of the world uses Windows, so attacks have more impact.

Never said otherwise

Although, yeah, we all know Windows is kinda... more.. vulnerable

[Xav]

I'm not so sure. Despite being the subject of much abuse, I honestly don't believe Microsoft's OS is more vulnerable. If everybody used Mandriva Linux, then all the viruses would be for Mandriva.

[Aereshaa]

Ha. Wrong on that count. Consider this: In its default configuration, a Windows computer connected to the internet will be compromised within a few minutes. Compare that to mine, where I have no firewall, no antivirus, no protection WHATSOEVER besides unix's inbuilt security, and more, have been continuously connected to the net for almost a whole year, with absolutely no problems.
Because windows has no separation between system and user files, and most users run with system priveliges all the time, users bring their computers close to being zombified just by turning them on!

[Xav]

That's beside the point. If Unix was what everybody used, then Unix computers would be this much more open to attack.

[Aereshaa]

I realize I just made several arguments. For the sake of confusion, I've numbered them.

I.
An operating system's vulnerability has no relation to how much it's used. Explain how Windows can have so many exploitable security holes, and linux or bsd so few, if linux' and bsd's entire sources are available freely to anyone, and windows' is kept under lock and key. The thing is, sites like Google use unix exclusively. You can't tell me google is less of a profitable target than you are! If unix was what everyone used, that wouldn't change the quality of the security.

II.
Another reason linux in particular is secure is because updates are released so quickly. When a vulnerability is found, any programmer with time on his hands can help fix it, and in no time, a fix is released, and it's over. Compare that with windows, where you have to wait until a service pack is released half a year later!
And this will only get worse, because XP will go out of support in a year or so, and then what will XP users do? Switch to vista? For most, no.

III.
A virus must become executable in order to be run. A virus cannot run itself or cause itself to be run. A virus runs only with the privileges of the one who runs it, and therefore can only affect that person's files. Perhaps you have never used a unix. let me elaborate. On linux, there are several users which I the owner can log in as, for example there is Aeresha, who is a user-level user with no permissions. If I run a program as Aereshaa, it can only affect the files which are set to be owned by the account Aereshaa.
Derived from the above, a virus cannot affect system files unless run by Root, the system account, which I only log in as in order to install programs. Therefore a virus must be able to trick me into downloading it, then trick me into making it executable, and then trick me into running it as root. That's a lot of trickery to try on a fairly intelligent and sensible person like me.