TL;DR - What are you running as a means of “antivirus” on Linux servers?

I have a few small Debian 12 servers running my services and would like to enhance my security posture. Some services are exposed to the internet and I’ve done quite a few things to protect the services and the hosts. When it comes to “antivirus”, I was looking at ClamAV as it seemed to be the most recommended. However, when I read the documentation, it stated that the recommended RAM was at least 2-4 gigs. Some of my servers have more power than other but some do not meet this requirement. The lower powered hosts are rpi3s and some Lenovo tinys.

When I searched for alternatives, I came across rkhunter and chrootkit, but they seem to no longer be maintained as their latest release was several years ago.

If possible, I’d like to run the same software across all my servers for simplicity and uniformity.

If you have a similar setup, what are you running? Any other recommendations?

P.S. if you are of the mindset that Linux doesn’t need this kind of protection then fine, that’s your belief, not mine. So please just skip this post.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The problem is you’re presenting this to people as a solution to a question that has zero to do with the valid applications of containers, some of which you just mentioned. Containers have a purpose, sure. I’m not arguing against that. What I’m incensed by is devs commenting similar awful solutions to a legit problem, and it’s increasingly becoming “use a container for that” for almost any concern, which is not only sending people down the wrong road, it’s just poor advice.

    Another note on your response, which is essentially “access to container won’t get you much”. Compromising a container gives you access to whatever that container has access to. Your position that it is somehow more secure is just 100% wrong. Refined and granular access controls to resources is the security layer, NOT the container. Sure, you probably can’t affect the container host, but who cares when you’ll expose whatever that container has access to, which is data and services. Same as any VM or bare metal server.

    Containers are a portable way to exploit resources more efficiently, and that’s it.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I respectfully disagree. Containers are 100% the right choice in this situation. They provide the defense-in-depth and access controls that combat the threats that OP is targeting by using ClamAV.

      The goal isn’t securing a single database through a single attack vector. And it’s not like ClamAV would help you with that, either. The goal is preventing attackers from using your infra’s broad attack surface to get inside, and then persisting and pivoting to get to that database.

      It’s just not true that you can get the same level of security by running everything bare-metal, especially as a one-man, self-hosted operation.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think Lemmy is glitching out here. My comment was a reply to a now deleted comment by just_another_person. It seems that after the comment was deleted, it messed up how the thread appears. Sorry for the confusion.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Friend, I’m not trying to be rude here, but not only are you failing to understand to question from OP, you’re failing to understand the implications of what you’re also proposing with a container. OP wants to scan static files with an AV solution.

        Are you proposing that they store ALL the files from their file server in a container? Are you suggesting they mount the volume to the container at runtime in order to access and scan them? Both are ridiculous solutions for different reasons. The former is just idiotic because it immediately removes the safety of said files and makes the container non-portable, and the latter because you’re just adding a container as overhead with zero benefit or added security to the host instance, just to scan files at regular intervals. A container with a volume mount is exactly the same thing as running the file servers on the host OS. You’re not making any sense.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          OP is asking for a guard dog to keep robbers from walking through their unlocked door. I’m telling OP to just lock their door and don’t bother with a guard dog.