Will antivirus be more significant on Linux desktop after this xz-util backdoor?
I understand that no Operating System is 100% safe. Although this backdoor is likely only affects certain Linux desktop users, particularly those running unstable Debian or testing builds of Fedora (like versions 40 or 41), **Could this be a sign that antivirus software should be more widely used on Linux desktops? ** ( I know this time is a zero-day attack)
What if, malicious code like this isn't discovered until after it's released to the public? For example, imagine it was included in the initial release of Fedora 40 in April. What if other malware is already widespread and affects more than just SSH, unlike this specific case?
My point is,
- Many people believe that Linux desktops don't require antivirus software.
- Antivirus can at least stop malware once it's discovered.
- Open-source software is protected by many parties, but a backdoor like this one, which reportedly took 2 years to plan and execute, raises my concern about being more cautious when choosing project code maintainers.
- Linux desktops will likely be targeted by more attacks as they become more popular.
IMO, antivirus does not save stupid people(who blindly disable antivirus // grant root permission) but it does save some lazy people.
OS rely heavily on users practicing caution and up-to-date(both knowledge and the system). While many users don't follow tech news, they could unknowingly be running (this/any) malware without ever knowing. They might also neglect system updates, despite recommendations from distro maintainers.
This is where antivirus software can be useful. In such cases, users might be somewhat protected once the backdoor signature is added to the antivirus database.
An antivirus wouldn't protect against the xz exploit. Imagine it did pull down the database of hashes and found a malicious xz binary, what is it going to do?
It can't quarantine it, because that would break programs. It could update it, but shouldn't your package manager be the one in charge of that? So the best it can do is notify you of the exploit... Which also feels like a thing the package manager should be doing.
I think instead of an antivirus, we should have a stricter permissions model. Certain applications can identity locations as "private" which blocks untrusted applications. So a random file you downloaded won't be able to read your browser cookie jar or Discord session.
Random files you download from the internet should be executed in an unprivileged context which requires a "do you want this application to have access to this?" prompt whenever it does something sketchy.
Interestingly, afaik, Valve already runs Windows games in a secure container when using Proton. Fun fact.
I'd add that if one of the basic libraries is compromised, you can't trust the anti-virus or really any other program on that system.
Yep, the antivirus might need a compression library to manage its database. :P
The xz issue might not directly affect an anti-virus, so maybe in this specific case, it would work fine. But it wouldn't be hard to come up with another library that would make the anti-virus moot. And even in the xz situation, doesn't it affect systemd?
All bets are off when you can no longer trust low level software like this.
Also, the Ken Thompson Hack comes to mind.
Didn't Guix solve that one with its full-source bootstrap?
Sorta.
You still need to trust a full Linux kernel and x86 hardware system.
I am not familiar with that. From a quick glance it looks like the new HURD. But I think even there you're relying on the work of others.
I did not know that about proton. Interesting.