Chci si nainstalovat spolu s Win7 Linux - Ubuntu, ale tak nějak logicky si myslím, že v Linuxech mi bude Comodo na prd. Na druhou stranu se mohu mýlit.
Může mi prosím poradit někdo s podobnou zkušeností?
May be Comodo in Windows, security for all hard disk (when there is Linux, too)?
Hi Pepa, please see my note here. 
Thanks.
Google translated for the convenience of others.
I want to install Win7 with Linux - Ubuntu, but somehow logically think that I will be in Linux Comodo sucks. On the other hand, I could be mistaken. Can someone please advise me of a similar experience?May be Comodo in Windows, security for all hard disk (when there is Linux, too)?
Thank you captainsticks for the translation.
I don’t really quite understand what is being requested. If:
a) the OP wants testimonies on the efficacy of Comodo in Linux?
b) the OP wants a comparison of security between Windows and Linux and how Comodo factors in, or
c) the OP want to know how to use comodo in windows in such a way that it will also protect the Linux installation?
I’ll answer all three and if I’ve completely utterly missed a point despite shotgunning through, please do tell.
a: Detection-wise (which would seem to be the only basis of comparison at this point in time), there are better alternatives to cavl, preferably avast. However, I wish to point out that it would be somewhat unnecessary considering that
b: Linux has better security protocols compared to Windows. This is because (1) installation of programs require root access and therefore, no programs can be installed without the user’s permission, (2) that programs are usually installed through the repositories which further eliminates the chances of users downloading malicious programs and launching them, (3) that modification of all critical system files require root access, (4) that by default, no program is allowed to autostart unless explicitly allowed by the user, (5) that system files may be installed in a separate partition of a different file system making it more difficult for malware to make changes, (6) that Linux has a much smaller community with a large variety of distros of varying structures making it excessively more difficult and therefore less appealing to target, and finally (7) that Linux servers can be installed headless and remotely administered eliminating vulnerabilities that could be common to both Linux and Windows primarily browser-based vulnerabilities.
However, we might as well do Windows justice by providing reasons it could be superior. One is that a wide variety of software is available which may or may not help boost its security. Also, patches against vulnerabilities are addressed much faster in Windows than in Linux and that Linux may be employed to protect Windows.
c: By default, Linux uses a different file system that Windows cannot read without the use of a third party software which, unfortunately, is still far from perfect and exposes Linux to more threats rather than securing it. Leave it as it is.
When securing Linux, unless you’re a high-profile individual, a router/VPN service and/or encryption program is all that should be needed for routine use taking of course into consideration as well the proper browser configurations which include a set of add-ons/extensions focused on security (i.e. Adblock, flashblock, noscript, etc). But if you are a high-profile individual, then that and place it in a custom Live USB (which may or may not be run in several layers of virtualization for each program), encrypted and ran at a limited time (i.e. 10 minutes per session).
If you’d like to know how I configured my “secure session installation” (done just for kicks):
But this is overkill. I mean, excessively overkill. And it’s troublesome to go through, too (though only trouble really is the additional clicks for launching the programs and the wait time that comes along with it). Just a liveCD is usually more than enough. It’s just for show really or when browsing…inappropriate…uhm…stuff. yeah, stuff…