It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:43 am



Welcome
Welcome to antiX-forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Lysistrata and safety
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:33 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Greece
How safe is AntiX-7.1? Sorry for asking but I am really new to Linux and running no antivirus or anti-malware makes me feel uncomfortable!!!. Do I need to install a firewall given the fact that my laptop is already behind the router's one (as configured to default settings from the adsl provider)? Reading a bit about Linux, I discovered the iptables command where a set of network traffic rules can be set. Lysistrata does not have any, so do I need to configure network traffic rules?
If I have to use additional software (AV, firewall) what would your recommendations be?

Many thanks
Christos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:56 pm
Posts: 200
Location: NC - USA
Lchris
AntiX does indeed use iptables. Security is adequate in antiX out of the box but you can use a gui front end to make adjustments if desired----Guarddog, for example (in the repos). Virusus in Linux are not entirely unheard of but are extremely rare. If concerned, you can download and implement clamav from the repos.

_________________
Reg. Linux User #432835


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:16 pm
Posts: 1520
Location: Canada's South Coast
As moron said, Linux virus's are extremely rare and I believe only proof of concept. I don't think there has ever been one in the "wild". iptables and the front ends such as guarddog and firestarter are more for protecting and controlling your network against intrusion. Clamav is good for virus's but I think mostly for windows problems if you have a local network.

Myself, I am behind a router along with one windows box and several Linux boxes. I have never had any problems with virus or intrusion in linux and don't use anything other than the router. The windows box does use antivirus and anti adware to protect itself but I think that's the norm now.

eriefisher


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:33 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Greece
Many thanks moron and eriefisher for your replies. I did a quick reading of the Guarddog's online manual where I found an online security test from GRC. I run the test and my antix-based system passed it with success. The only thing which did not "pass" was the ping reply but I do not think that is a problem as I am having a dynamic IP. Finally, I might install the clamav just for manually scanning files that I transfer to my XP system.

Christos

PS The test results:

GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2008-04-08 at 11:43:40

Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445,
1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000

0 Ports Open
0 Ports Closed
26 Ports Stealth
---------------------
26 Ports Tested

ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH.

TruStealth: FAILED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- A PING REPLY (ICMP Echo) WAS RECEIVED.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:16 pm
Posts: 1520
Location: Canada's South Coast
You have to be careful with GRC. Sometimes it's your isp that is responding and not your own machine so the results may not be entirely accurate. You should still be ok though.

eriefisher


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:26 pm
Posts: 57
Location: Sol Sector
Lchris wrote:
ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH.

TruStealth: FAILED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- A PING REPLY (ICMP Echo) WAS RECEIVED.


I am almost certain that the ping reply came from your router and not from your computer. In any case, it's not as big a deal as the GRC site makes it out to be. The important thing is making sure that you don't have any open ports (unless you're running a publicly-accessible server, in which case you can't avoid having some open ports).

Phil


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: California
Two questions - if this is considered hijacking, please let me know - how about including clamtk and a firewall app on the next iso? Thanks.

john


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
suspicion-preferred