What frustrates me about the answers these questions get is no one ever offers tools comparable to Windows tools, perhaps I think increasingly because they simply don’t exist outside of very expensive subscription enterprise offerings that require plunking down no less than a thousand dollars a year. (Certainly none of the major AV vendors offers consumer Linux versions of their software though most offer enterprise endpoint Linux that comes with the caveat of minimum spends of several hundred dollars if not several thousand a year)

ClamAV is primarily a definition AV, the very weakest and most useless kind. Sure it’s kind of useful to make sure your file server isn’t passing around year old malware but it’s basically useless for real time prevention of emerging and unknown threats. For that you needs HIPS, behavior control, conditional/mandatory access control, heuristics, etc. ClamAV has one of the worst detection rates in the industry. It’s just laughably bad (often under 60%) so it’s really not a front line contender at all.

Compare clam to consumer offerings with complex behavioral control like ESET, Kaspersky, etc that offered “suite” software that featured the aforementioned HIPS, behavioral control, complex heuristics to detect and in real time block malware-like behavior (for example accessing and then seeking to upload your keepass database files or starting to surreptitiously encrypt all your user files using RSA4096) and it just isn’t in the same ballpark as anything competently done in the last 20 years.

I haven’t used or relied on a traditional AV for definition detections for years. They’re worthless, it’s impossible to keep up. The AV’s I’ve deployed are for their heuristics, behavior control, HIPS, etc which actually stops new and emerging and unknown threats or at least puts real obstacles in their way. So what Linux needs, what users need is software like that, forget the traditional virus definitions, something with behavior control, HIPS, and some basic heuristics for “gee this sure looks like malware behavior, better ask the user whether they want and intend this”.

“Just be smart about what you run” isn’t a realistic solution when people say Linux is for everyone including their tech illiterate relatives. Yes, Linux is a lot safer if you just install things from package managers but that isn’t bulletproof either as we’ve seen a number of spectacular impact upstream malware insertions into build repos for huge software projects in recent years.

Just maintain back-ups isn’t helpful with smart cryptolocker software which may hide itself for weeks or months and encrypt your files as you back them up. Nor does it protect against account compromise from all your passwords being stolen or a keylogger. Nor does it defend you against persecution after being hit by mercenary/government police-ware and spyware from overreaching governments and makes the bar for them getting evidence you’re an illegal gay person or whatever that much lower technically in terms of capabilities.

Back-ups are disaster recovery. Everyone should have them but part of a layered defense is preventing the disaster and inconvenience and invasion of privacy and so on before it happens. Having your identity stolen or accounts taken over isn’t as simple as reverting to a back-up, it can result in hours, days of phone calls, emails, stress, hassle, etc that can drag on for weeks or months.

Portmaster is a start for this type of system control and protection as it’s a very effective interactive firewall but as far as I know there aren’t any consumer available comprehensive behavior control + HIPS type Linux desktop security solutions. There are several vendors of default deny mandatory access control with interactive mode for Windows but none offer solutions for Linux that aren’t part of enterprise sized contracts beyond affordability and reason. If anyone knows otherwise I would love to know of these solutions as I want to implement them on my Linux machines as I am not comfortable with just my network IPS and firewall solutions by themselves without comprehensive end-point security.