I can answer this. For the same reason I have run ClamAV on Linux development workstations. Because without it, we cannot attest that we have satisfied all requirements of the contract from the client's security organization.
Also if you are a small business and are required to have cybersecurity liability insurance, the underwriter will require such sensors to be in place or you will get no policy.
For the same reasons there's antivirus software for Mac and Linux.
People coming from Microsoft systems just expect it to be required, so there's demand for it (demand != need). And in hybrid environments it may remove a weak link: e.g. a Linux mailserver that serves mail to Windows users best has virus detection for windows viruses.
I’m not defending CrowdStrike here. This is a clearly egregious lack of test coverage, but CrowdStrike isn’t “just” antivirus. The Falcon Sensor does very useful things beyond that, like USB device control, firewall configuration, reporting, etc.
If your use case has a lesser need for antimalware you might still deploy CrowdStrike to achieve those ends. Which help to lessen reliance on antimalware as a singular defense (which of course it shouldn’t be).
It's not just those darn windows admins. Alot of the certifications customers care about- SOC II, ISO whatever, FedRamp, have line items that require it.
I've had to install server antivirus onto my Linux laptop at 4 different companies. Every time it's been a pain in the ass because the the only antivirus solutions I've found for Linux assume that "this must be a file server used by Windows clients". None of them are actually useful, so I've installed them and disabled them. There, box-checking exercise done.
> For the same reasons there's antivirus software for Mac and Linux.
Because they can also get malware or could use the extra control CS provides, and the "I'm not a significant target so I'm safe" is not really a solid defense? Bad quality protection (as exemplified by the present CS issues) isn't a justification for no protection at all.
Would you ignore the principle of least privilege (least user access) and walk around with all the keys to the kingdom just because you're savvier than most at detecting an attack and anyway you're only one person, what are the chances you're targeted? You're the Linux/MacOS of the user world, and "everyone knows those principles are only for the Windows equivalent of users".
I'm not arguing that Linux or Mac need no protection.
There are serious threats to any Linux machine. And if you include Android, there are probably far more Linux machines out there. Hell, including their navigation, router, NAS, TV, and car, my 70+ yo mom runs at least 5 Linux machines at her home. It's a significant target. And Mac is quite obviously a neat target, if only because the demographic usually has higher income (hardly any Bangladeshi sweatshop worker will put down the cash to buy a MacBook or iphone. But might just own an Android or windows laptop)
I'm arguing that viruses aren't a threat, generally. Partly due to the architecture, partly due to their useage.
Neither Linux nor OSX are immune to viruses, though malware is more commonly written to target Windows given its position in the market. Both iOS and Android are frequent malware targets despite neither being related to Windows, and consequently, both have antivirus capabilities integrated deeply into both the OS and the app delivery ecosystem.
Any OS deployed on a user device needs some form of malware protection unless the device is blocked from doing anything interesting. You can generally forgo anti-malware on servers that are doing one thing that requires a smaller set of permissions (e.g., serving a website), but that's not because of the OS they are running.
Sure, “AVG Mobile Security” is available, but nobody needs it, and it isn’t anything like antivirus software on a computer. It provides... a photo vault, a VPN, and “identity protection.”
To tell people that they are vulnerable without something like this on their iPhone is ludicrous.
Nobody meeds antivirus software or malware protection like this on their iPhone, unless they like just giving money away.
If you'll scroll up to the comment you originally replied to, you'll see that I said Android and iOS have AV capabilities built into the OS and app delivery ecosystem. That's more than enough for most users: mobile OSes have something much closer to a capability-based security paradigm than desktop OSes, and both Apple and Google are pretty quick to nerf app behavior that subverts user expectations via system updates (unless it was done by the platform to support ad sales).
Your mobile device is a Turing machine, and as such it is vulnerable to malware. However, the built-in protections are probably sufficient unless you have a specific reason to believe they are not.
The only AV software for mobile devices that I have seen used is bundled with corporate "endpoint management" features like a VPN, patch and policy management, and remote wipe support. It's for enterprise customers that provision phones for their employees.
> You can generally forgo anti-malware on servers that are doing one thing that requires a smaller set of permissions (e.g., serving a website), but that's not because of the OS they are running.
It seems to me like you’re trying to have it both ways.
It really is because of the OS that one doesn’t need to run anti-malware software on those servers and also on the iPhone, which you seem to have admitted.
It seems like we're both trying to make a distinction that the other person thinks is unimportant. But if the crucial marker for you is whether anti-malware protection is built into the OS, then I've got great news for you: Windows has built-in AV, too, and it's more than enough for most users.
The distinction I was trying to make is that the anti-malware strategy used by servers (restrict what the user can do, use formal change control processes, monitor performance trends and compare resource utilization against a baseline and expectations inferred from incoming work metrics) is different from the anti malware strategy used by "endpoints" (scanning binaries and running processes for suspicious patterns).
I'd say very special people need malware protection like this on their iPhone.
Remember NSO Group? Or the campaign Kaspersky exposed last year? Apple successfully made malware on iOS very rare unless you are targeted. But right now, it is impossible for these targeted people to get any kind of protection. Even forensics after being compromised is extremely difficult thanks to Apple's walled garden approach.
The usefulness of a theoretical app that might be able to stop high-power exploits isn’t being debated. The claim I’m objecting to is that everybody should be running (available) antivirus software on their phone.
But if you mean that these highly targeted people would have been helped by running “AVG Mobile Security” or one of the other available so-called “antivirus” apps, then I’ve got an enterprise security contract to sell you. :)
> The claim I’m objecting to is that everybody should be running (available) antivirus software on their phone.
You're objecting to the (much more specific) claim that everybody should be running 3P antivirus software on their phone. Nobody made this claim. You are already running AV software on your phone, and whatever is built into the platform is more than sufficient for most users.
I spent some time on STIG website out of curiosity. There seem to be down-to-earth practical requirements but only for Windows, cf. https://public.cyber.mil/stigs/gpo/
Why does it justify running antiviri on Linux is beyond my understanding.
Weak, impotent, speechless IT personnel that can not face off incompetence?
Windows IT admins who don’t use or understand Linux/Mac. Who also buy at the enterprise level. And who probably have to install (perhaps unnecessary) endpoint protection to satisfy compliance checklists.
The amount of Windows centric IT that gets pushed to Linux/Mac is crazy. I’ve been in meeting where using Windows based file storage was discussed at a possibility for an HPC compute cluster (Linux). And they were being serious. This was in theory so that central IT could manage backups.
To make money? Just because CrowdStrike is available for Linux and Mac doesn't mean that a) people buy and use it in substantial numbers b) people need to buy it. It would be interesting to hear from someone using CrowdStrike in a Linux/Mac environment.
We run Crowdstrike on Linux and Macs so that we can tick some compliance checkbox.
Fun fact: they’ve recommended we don’t install the latest kernel updates since they usually lag a bit with support. We’re running Ubuntu LTS, not some bleeding edge arch. It now supports using ebpf so it’s somewhat better.
The policies are written by folks who have no understanding of different operating environments. The requirement "All servers and workstations must have EDR software installed" leads to top-level execs doing a deal with Crowdstrike because they "support" Linux, Mac, and Windows. So then every host must have their malware installed to check the box. Doesn't matter if it's useful or not.
Indeed and insurance too. For our business, our professional errors and omissions coverage for years had the ability to cover cyber issues. No more. That requires cybersecurity insurance and the underwriters will not entertain underwriting a policy unless EDR is in place. They don't care if you are running OpenBSD and are an expert in cybersecurity who testifies in court cases or none of that. EDR from our list or no insurance.
For macOS? Because without it you don't have certain monitoring and compliance capabilities that are standard built-ins in windows, plus for windows/linux/mac the monitoring capabilities are all useful and help detect unwanted operation.
