Using two antivirus programs at the same time

[fred128]

Are there any two antivirus programs that can be active at the same time that won't trip over each other? If there are, is it a wise thing to do?

[C.S.J]

i dont recommend this at all.

so far, i hear spysweeper with integrated antivirus (sophos) as no conflicts, but that might have changed by now, only one i know really.

[Arin]

Just think of it in this way: you have Bill and Ted doing the same thing and both of them are trained to do it before anyone. So don't you think Bill and Ted will actually end up fighting with each other for the job?

[fred128]

The reason I'm asking is because I downloaded Norton antivirus 2007 and it warned me that it isn't compatable with ZoneAlarm. I deeply trust ZoneAlarm Firewall and had to make a decision so I asked Norton for a refund and immediately upgraded to the ZoneAlarm Security Suite. I was worried that another product might also not be compatable with the firewall.
After doing so, I went out onto the web looking for reviews of the ZoneAlarm Security Suite and as with any other review, some like the antivirus and others didn't so right now, I'm very confused about whether I did the right thing.
I surf safely using Mcafee's Site Advisor and limit my browsing to only things I'm interested in so I assume that the virus software in ZoneAlarm is okay for me but still......
I would be very thankful for any opinions about the antivirus program in ZoneAlarm.

[Perman]

Hi, folks: I am running ZASS 6.5.737 presently. Earlier, I was so convinced that its AV was not up to my need.Therefore I searched for its replacement; KAV 6 or BidDefender 10, all worked fine w/ ZASS's AV disable. I also found Sophos, AVG, Antivir were all compatible w/ ZASS(AV off). Norton and Mcaffee are notorious of their compatibility, do not even try them. After these trials and errors, I finally tell myself: the bird in my own hands is often worth more than all bunch in the woods. Incoporating some foreign parts (AV) into existing,often creates system slowdown/drags, internet connectivity issues and so so. Perhaps ZASS's AV is not that great, but after a while, I think it can and is capable to perform its duties. Why create unnecessary nightmare? Stay w/ what you alredy have, IMO. :-*

[Arin]

@fred128

Well in that case its a compatibillity issue. You can't do anything about it. So
just keep the software which you think is more important to you. For me an AV is more important than a firewall. XP SP2 firewall does the work for me. It might be different for you. IMHO Zonealarm as an AV is not bad at all as you are also a safe surfer.

[dan_maran]

As stated many many many times before two AV's in tandem are not advised ever. Unless it is one program and 2 engines CA, AVK etc. then it is designed this way. So if you are a safe surfer and use your head then ZA's AV(VET) should suffice.

OT:
Did anyone else think of Officespace while reading the title of this thread?

[Arin]

LOL not really but makes a very good example though.

[Cerxes]

I agree with above: ZASS CA:s Vet engine is good enough if you are a safe surfer/downloader. Together with its spywareengine you are well protected, but if you want you could always add another AS/AT for example AVG:s AS, SUPERAntispyware, BOClean e t c.

Regards, C.

[fred128]

Everyone.
Thanks for all of your responses. As long as I surf in safe places and don't arbitrarily download unknown programs, I should be okay.

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "Are there any two antivirus programs that can be active at the same time that won't trip over each other? If there are, is it a wise thing to do?" }-

Not a good idea.

[ccsito]

It probably isn't a good thing to have two resident antivirus programs in memory. I did have Norton Antivirus and Antivir active on my PC earlier this year and never got any BSOD nor any conflcts at all.

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "i dont recommend this at all.

so far, i hear spysweeper with integrated antivirus (sophos) as no conflicts, but that might have changed by now, only one i know really." }-


SpySweeper is an antispyware program.
What antivirus is it that the Sophos part of SpySweeper with Antivirus doesn't conflict with?

[C.S.J]

the person testing the spysweeper with sophos integrated. cant remember who, mentioned it doesnt conflict with their antivirus software.

[Quakindude]

There's no reason at all to run two different AV programs.

I wouldn't put Norton's on my machine if the U.S. Army didn't give it to me for free. And it's the CE Edition, so I can really pare down the level of involvement it tries to make with my system. Norton's if not installed properly, can be a system resource PIG.

I put AVG A/V on my friends computers.

As far as firewalls go, if you have a router with built in hardware firewall, there's nothing a software suite is going to give you that beats that. So if you have a hardware firewall router, and have a software firewall installed, you're just wasting system resources.

Depending on WindowsXP firewall as your only solution is like depending on single-ply toilet paper. Eventually, your gonna get some crap on your fingers.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "There's no reason at all to run two different AV programs.

I wouldn't put Norton's on my machine if the U.S. Army didn't give it to me for free. And it's the CE Edition, so I can really pare down the level of involvement it tries to make with my system. Norton's if not installed properly, can be a system resource PIG.

I put AVG A/V on my friends computers.

As far as firewalls go, if you have a router with built in hardware firewall, there's nothing a software suite is going to give you that beats that. So if you have a hardware firewall router, and have a software firewall installed, you're just wasting system resources.

Depending on WindowsXP firewall as your only solution is like depending on single-ply toilet paper. Eventually, your gonna get some crap on your fingers." }-


so are you saying that if you have a hardware firewall you dont really need a software firewall?
but i guess that is true because if there no malware on your system it cant send data out.

[ErikAlbert]

I use Prevx1 as an all-in-one shield, which is much stronger than a real-time shield of just one scanner.
There is nothing better than preventing the installation of malwares, anything else is worse, except disconnecting your computer from the internet.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "I use Prevx1 as an all-in-one shield, which is much stronger than a real-time shield of just one scanner.
" }-
Could we have some proof regarding this regarding this blanket statement..............i know PrevX of course claims this, but where is the evidence supporting this beyond the belief in what they claim? :)

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "Could we have some proof regarding this regarding this blanket statement..............i know PrevX of course claims this, but where is the evidence supporting this beyond the belief in what they claim? :)" }-
Where is the evidence that it doesn't ? I see alot of opinions at Wilders without evidence. :)

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Where is the evidence that it doesn't ? I see alot of opinions at Wilders without evidence. :)" }-
Yes, i agree that there are many posts like that, but you said "I use Prevx1 as an all-in-one shield, which is much stronger than a real-time shield of just one scanner.", so i just i would just like to know made make such strong claim, it seemed like you had maybe seen something i haven't.

For all we know, maybe even users with a free anti-virus like AntiVir might be better protected than with PrevX alone, since no test has been made with the present line of PrevX. :)

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "Yes, i agree that there are many posts like that, but you said "I use Prevx1 as an all-in-one shield, which is much stronger than a real-time shield of just one scanner.", so i just i would just like to know made make such strong claim, it seemed like you had maybe seen something i haven't.

For all we know, maybe even users with a free anti-virus like AntiVir might be better protected than with PrevX alone, since no test has been made with the present line of PrevX. :)" }-
Prevx1 has a community database that collects constantly good, bad and caution programs from Prevx1-users world-wide. Prevx1 collects everything (all-in-one) and that makes it better than any other real-time scanner shield.
So there is a constant communication between experts and users via Prevx1.

If a program doesn't exist in the community database or the community database isn't available, a new program on your computer is considered as "unknown" and will be treated according the setting for unknown programs : Query, Allow, Blocked, and that makes the circle complete for having a very good protection.

Prevx1 is one of the first HIPS softwares, that is USERFRIENDLY, in other words HIPS for EVERYONE. Classic HIPS doesn't have a chance to become popular, while Prevx1 will have a chance in the real world.

Prevx1 has alot of other features, which are all mentioned on the Prevx1's website.
The basic idea is good, the way it works is good, its general nature is good, they have enough knowledgeable people to do it and users enough to feed the community database.

[WSFuser]

i dont recommend running two AV simultaneously, but i will say that in years past, ive run avast and nod32 together.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Prevx1 has a community database that collects constantly good, bad and caution programs from Prevx1-users world-wide. Prevx1 collects everything (all-in-one) and that makes it better than any other real-time scanner shield.
So there is a constant communication between experts and users via Prevx1.

If a program doesn't exist in the community database or the community database isn't available, a new program on your computer is considered as "unknown" and will be treated according the setting for unknown programs : Query, Allow, Blocked, and that makes the circle complete for having a very good protection.

Prevx1 is one of the first HIPS softwares, that is USERFRIENDLY, in other words HIPS for EVERYONE. Classic HIPS doesn't have a chance to become popular, while Prevx1 will have a chance in the real world.

Prevx1 has alot of other features, which are all mentioned on the Prevx1's website.
The basic idea is good, the way it works is good, its general nature is good, they have enough knowledgeable people to do it and users enough to feed the community database." }-
I wasn't asking for the PrevX pamphlet, i've read it already ;) (& used PrevX in many different versions), i more interested in the actual detection, not the marketing mumbojumbo which is never the reality.

For example if this community database is the old uninventive/reactive & slow anti-viruses (or any type of scanner based program) so superior as they claim...then why would the much more (financially) strong Symantec, McAfee, Trend-micro etc etc not use this strategy? I mean if malware is detected as fast as PrevX claims (Prevx - we see more malware and spyware, we see it faster, we protect you better.), then this would be "very easy" for them to improve how fast they add malware to their detection, they have both the finances and manpower to do it.......that is, if this is in reality as "überlegen" as PrevX claims, only time will tell of course.

To me PrevX is just one of many programs you can add to your layer of protection. Just a thought.:)

To fred128

You should keep Zonealarm if you like this suite, you can always do some online scans (there are some in my signature) if you like a second opinion, having two installed is too much trouble if you don't know how to go about it.

You also have the free anti-trojan choices in A2 & AVG anti-spyware you could add....... as well as PrevX! :)

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "For example if this community database is the old uninventive/reactive & slow anti-viruses (or any type of scanner based program) so superior as they claim...then why would the much more (financially) strong Symantec, McAfee, Trend-micro etc etc not use this strategy? I mean if malware is detected as fast as PrevX claims (Prevx - we see more malware and spyware, we see it faster, we protect you better.), then this would be "very easy" for them to improve how fast they add malware to their detection, they have both the finances and manpower to do it.......that is, if this is in reality as "überlegen" as PrevX claims, only time will tell of course." }-
Prevx1 has another strategy and only time will tell, which strategy is the best.
In theory I don't need any security softwares.

All malwares have one thing in common : they "change" my snapshot by adding, deleting and/or replacing objects.
A frozen snapshot is not a security software, but it has one special feature : it detects "changes" and removes these "changes" by adding, deleting and/or replacing objects until the snapshot is back like it was before.
Even when my frozen snapshot fails and this is not supposed to happen, I only need to replace it with a clean archived snapshot. This means that I have a guaranteed clean snapshot every morning to start with.

Unfortunately frozen snapshots remove only "changes", when I reboot and I can't reboot every minut, just like I can't run scanners every minut.
This means that during two reboots, malwares have the chance to install and execute themselves in my frozen snapshot.
That's why I need Prevx1 to cover that period and when Prevx1 misses a malware, it will be removed anyway during the next reboot.
AV/AS/AT/AK-scanners can do the same thing, but I need more of them, while Prevx1 is an all-in-one Anti-Malware.
The removal of malwares isn't a problem in my frozen snapshot, the installation and execution of malwares is a problem.
So right now, I'm looking for softwares that prevent the installation and/or execution of malware for a period between two reboots.
Prevx1 is one of these softwares, because of its general nature and I'm still looking for other softwares that do a similar job, EXCEPT scanners. I just need these softwares for a temporary protection between two reboots.

A frozen snapshot has another problem, it removes "changes", which means not only "bad changes", but also "good changes". So I have to find a solution for that too to make a snapshot more viable.
Most FDISR-users give up on finding a solution for this problem, because it is too inconvenient at first sight.
Most FDISR-users, including the manual, also said to me that booting in archived snapshots was IMPOSSIBLE, until I proved it was POSSIBLE.
Maybe I have a little more imagination than most users, I look at problems from different angles and I combine alot. I separate problems from one another. I split complex problems in little problems and so on.
That's what I do constantly at work. I think first in big lines and details are for later. :)

[mercurie]

Use only one realtime AV and when using the on demand scan one disable the realtime part of the other one while scanning.

Beef up with other security products do not duplicate your AV.

[dah145]

-{ Quote: "Could we have some proof regarding this regarding this blanket statement..............i know PrevX of course claims this, but where is the evidence supporting this beyond the belief in what they claim? :)" }-
I agree in that with Don, there is no evidence regarding that, from my point of view PrevX is just like an AV using blacklists instead of signatures.

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "Use only one realtime AV and when using the on demand scan one disable the realtime part of the other one while scanning.

Beef up with other security products do not duplicate your AV." }-
That's the classical approach. Only the main AV-scanner would be usefull for me. On-demand scanners are useless to me, because they only remove malwares, when it's already too late. My frozen snapshot does exactly the same : removing installed malwares when it's already too late.

But there are two big differences between on-demand scanners and my frozen snapshot :
1. A frozen snapshot removes EVERYTHING (= ANY CHANGE) and scanners remove only what is blacklisted in their definition database and what its heuristcs finds.
2. A frozen snapshot removes malwares in 2 minuts. I don't know any decent scanner or group of scanners that does a FULL scan in two minuts.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "I agree in that with Don, there is no evidence regarding that, from my point of view PrevX is just like an AV using blacklists instead of signatures." }-Well, obviously, that not strictly correct either.

Prevx will flag any application that it does not recognize, or for which a caution exists in addition to known malware. This is distinct from an AV at least with respect to the pure blacklist (plus heuristics these days) vs. blacklist/whitelist/caution/unlisted differentiation. With a standard AV, everything is either known bad or presumed good. Prevx does not appear to presume anything. If it is not known bad or known good, you will be apprised that it is unknown, unless of course you set it to automatically block unknown programs.

Granted, how this fully operates in practice has not been exhaustively quantified in any independent tests that I've seen.

Blue

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "I agree in that with Don, there is no evidence regarding that, from my point of view PrevX is just like an AV using blacklists instead of signatures." }-
Exactly, there is no evidence of anything. Nothing but guesses and guesses are not good enough for me. And guessing creates alot of opinions and preferences without scientific proof.
That a member agrees or disagrees with another member isn't really valuable to me and doesn't make me wiser. I have my own plans and I can think for myself. :)

[KOS2006]

I think KIS+Antivir will be OK.They can be used at the same time.