If Linux is so resistant to virii, why should an enterprise spend money on protecting their systems against something that is less likely to happen than a freak lightening storm? The answer is in the network. It is highly unlikely that any of your Linux servers or workstations will contract any of the 40 or so known Linux viruses that, incidentally, have yet to be seen outside of a labratory. However, if you have a mixed network of Windows and Linux workstations and servers, you may unhapplily find out one day that while your Linux boxes won't contract a virus, they are more than happy to pass it along the network to your more vulnerable Windows boxes.
Common sense dictates that each workstation in your organization have anti-virus software installed on it regardless of the resident OS. Too many employees bring dirty USB sticks in from home and open emails and click on links that they shouldn't. Not having a robust anti-virus solution at every network entry point is destined to bring trouble. So should you use anti-virus on the Linux boxes on your network? I would. Article by Jon Watson from http://www.jonwatson.ca 
There seems to be something rotten afoot in the anti-virus industry these days. At first glance it seems unlikely that there is any use for a GNU/Linux anti-virus application like AVG or ClamAV, yet there they are. And more companies are producing Linux AV as we speak. Is this a blatant fear-ware cash grab?
while i mostly agree with what you're saying, you do appear to be somewhat misinformed by the register/securityfocus...
here's a rebuttal from virus bulletin to that securityfocus article that you might find interesting
(linux vs. windows viruses: a rebuttal)
Posted by: kurt wismer | March 28, 2006 7:55 AM | Permalink to Comment