Which AVs are you running together?

[Crinie]

Originally Posted by J_L

Products that are made to be compatible isn't like running 2 AVs together.

such as...

[fax]

Originally Posted by Crinie

such as...

WSA/PREVX and OA++ ... they have different on-access approaches to minimise conflicts. They were/are designed to run along other AVs.

[trjam]

Originally Posted by Mr.PC

+1!
Running two (2) or more AVs...
What a waste of Resources for a bit of incremental Security!
I wonder if it is Security or Insecurity after all...

Insecurity? From what? People are looking a antivirus product like it is a washer or dryer, an adamant object .

Keep in mind, it is just code written to perform a specific action. The same code written into products labeled spy cleaners, malware fighters, etc. They all perform a single action to scan, in different ways. Is the action of 2 AVs scanning a file worse then a AV,and WSA and Spyshelter also doing the same thing. I think not. Where it would be a serious conflict would be running 2 suites together, but I honestly dont think 2 AVs scanning specific files is different or more taxing on a system then some setups I see posted here. It is just my 2 cents and I am no longer doing it, but I still say it isnt the end of the world like some imply.

And WSA was used a reference. The product is very good, or am I just being, insecure.

[Crinie]

Originally Posted by fax

WSA/PREVX and OA++ ... they have different on-access approaches to minimise conflicts. They were/are designed to run along other AVs.

I'd like to try more combos like that.

[Konata Izumi]

Originally Posted by Mr.PC

+1!
Running two (2) or more AVs...
What a waste of Resources for a bit of incremental Security!
I wonder if it is Security or Insecurity after all...

you have all my thumbs up

[fax]

Originally Posted by trjam

And WSA was used a reference.

WSA has been designed to work with other AVs, if you want to. Not the right example for multiple AVs.

[Hungry Man]

Originally Posted by trjam

Insecurity? From what? People are looking a antivirus product like it is a washer or dryer, an adamant object .

Keep in mind, it is just code written to perform a specific action. The same code written into products labeled spy cleaners, malware fighters, etc. They all perform a single action to scan, in different ways. Is the action of 2 AVs scanning a file worse then a AV,and WSA and Spyshelter also doing the same thing. I think not. Where it would be a serious conflict would be running 2 suites together, but I honestly dont think 2 AVs scanning specific files is different or more taxing on a system then some setups I see posted here. It is just my 2 cents and I am no longer doing it, but I still say it isnt the end of the world like some imply.

And WSA was used a reference. The product is very good, or am I just being, insecure.

I don't know what those programs are ... but it's a widely accepted fact that when two programs try to scan a file you get poor results. It is really as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Crinie

such as...

Such as malwarebytes, which is designed to work with other antivirus products.

It is specifically made to do this otherwise, like everyone has said, it would conflict with other antiviruses.

[John Bull]

With 64 posts so far this thread appears to be approaching mammoth proportions, but confusing - some do, some don`t and no firm conclusion is evident. A Newbie reading this thread would be totally confused. I fact this confusion is not exclusive to Newbies.

I have touched on the following question earlier, but nobody answered it.
When I raised a thread about using multiple Firewalls, I was geeked off stage with a barrage of logical and accepted arguments against it.

Why then is using multiple AV`s any different ? The same arguments simply must apply.

As several experienced posters here apparently endorse using multiple AV`s, can they please clarify their reasons for flying against the tide of software logic immediately, so we can all enjoy a new horizon and live happily ever after.

I suggest any one of these posters finish this text :-
" My reasons for using multiple AV`s are -----------------?"

John

[NRProia]

Hello,

I run Microsoft Security Essentials and Norton Security Suite together. Both seem to work well, but Norton does a better job. I used to run additional spyware protection, but have since given them up due to performance issues:

IOBit.com - Malware Fighter Free
LavaSoft.com - Ad-Aware Free Internet Security
MalwareBytes.org - Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free
SuperAntiSpyware.com - SUPERAntiSpyware Free Edition

Regards,

Nathan

[cozumel]

Originally Posted by John Bull

I suggest any one of these posters finish this text :-
" My reasons for using multiple AV`s are -----------------?"

Please could the answer also include supporting evidence to support their argument.

Could those who advise against multiple instances of real-time av also include supporting evidence.

Many thanks

[NRProia]

Originally Posted by cozumel

Please could the answer also include supporting evidence to support their argument.

Hello,

I occasionally re-format my hard drive and install Windows 7 x64 from scratch, followed by a fresh download of all of my freeware and commercial applications. Microsoft Security Essentials is one of the first programs that I install (usually via Windows Update, but a direct link is available as well). And Norton Security Suite is that last program that I install so that it doesn't become bloated by all of the installation routines. I then run-test all of the applications and utilities on my PC to properly configure the Norton firewall. I run both at the same time because I'm used to it and have not had any problems.

Regards,

Nathan

[Hungry Man]

Originally Posted by cozumel

Please could the answer also include supporting evidence to support their argument.

Could those who advise against multiple instances of real-time av also include supporting evidence.

Many thanks

It's really a common sense thing. You can see similar things happen all of the time.

If you have a.exe and it's started and is process A and you try to delete a.exe you can't because it's being used/ running.

If you have a.exe being scanned by Antivirus 1 and then Antivirus 2 tries to scan it it won't be able to because it's already being used.

This is why we also have boot-time scans, because if a file is being used it's much harder to deal with.

The difference between the situations is that the first one is a.exe starting the process so you can simply end the a.exe process and delete it. For a single antivirus that's no issue.

If you have a.exe being used by a separate process like Antivirus 1, it's not so simple a process. Antivirus 2 may try to end Antivirus 1 or scan a.exe before Antivirus 1 gets the chance. They are both trying to get to a.exe before it can execute and before any other program gets the chance to execute it - after all, if it's malicious and it executes you could be infected.

I think that it's fairly obvious to see that when two programs are designed to get to a file before anything else has a chance there can be conflicts.

Will you always see this? No. Obviously not, the fact that people do this and think they're fine is evidence of this. Does this mean it's not conflicting? No.

Errors can manifest in so many ways. If AV 1 is unable to scan because AV 2 screws something up you may end up with a false positive... or AV2 might mess with a.exe in a way that makes it seem more legitimate and the file may be incorrectly marked as valid.

These are complex programs and I can't pretend that I can predict how different ones would work together but I can predict that, at their base level, they're trying to do conflicting actions.

[Hungry Man]

And that's just for basic scanning... don't even get me started on suites that include things like .dll injection or other methods... or performance hits.


Basically, if you don't feel safe with a single antivirus maybe you should look into something that is widely accepted not to conflict with it instead of chancing it on something that is widely accepted to conflict with it.

[twl845]

Originally Posted by trjam

And why not, I started to ask myself. I own both till 2015 and started thinking that it stinks I cant use both together, so I decided to do just that.

We run multiple other security apps, that just happen to not be labeled antivirus products, but in reality most are or work the same way.

I have been running Eset V5 AV and Avira AV together on a computer for quite awhile. Eset is the main and on Avira, I disabled web and email scanning. But they are both active scanning in real time, and guess what..............

Not a bit of slowdown and memory usage is basically uneffected. And yes I have seen both detect and actually its pretty cool.

Just because others say it wont work, doesnt prove they know what they are talking about.

If you get infected with a virus, and both AV's swing into action to contain it, only one is going to win the race to contain it, and the resulting conflict could hamper the operation, I'm told. It's like buying 2 auto insurance policies. Only one will pay your claim if you have an accident, so why waste money buying two?

[Hungry Man]

I'd love it if a moderator could break it down in terms of which API's are called and explain more in-depth why they can't run together.

But honestly, even if they could... talk about a heavy set up. All that disk I/O, probably around 100-150MB of RAM between the two of them. Egh, no thanks.

[cozumel]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

These are complex programs and I can't pretend that I can predict how different ones would work together but I can predict that, at their base level, they're trying to do conflicting actions.

I completely agree with everything you state (in your entire post, even if I only quoted a tiny part). The theory is completely sound and is the basis, foundation, of every system I build and configure. I have never tested this theory and was hoping someone here had done so. I have basically used the statements from av manufacturers and ms to support my theory which is quite unsatisfactory.
I was kinda hoping that someone here had done some testing and would be able to post the results demonstrating how running two (or more) AVs together reduces effectiveness.

That is the only reason I have not expressed my opinion. I have nothing except theory to support my argument. Without the justification, my theory means nothing (except in my head).

Does that make sense?

[cozumel]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

I'd love it if a moderator could break it down in terms of which API's are called and explain more in-depth why they can't run together.

Now that would be -Phrase removed- perfect!!

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

I'd love it if a moderator could break it down in terms of which API's are called and explain more in-depth why they can't run together.

But honestly, even if they could... talk about a heavy set up. All that disk I/O, probably around 100-150MB of RAM between the two of them. Egh, no thanks.

Hungry -

Fine, but there are some brilliant software and PC experts who are members of Wilders, who could eat this AV matter and spit it out with no trouble at all, giving us all a precise and clear answer.

The trouble is, they are not coming in on the discussion.

John

[G1111]

Emsisoft AM & MBAM. No conflicts here.

[tommy456]

I use SAS eset ss5 and pc tools spyware doctor , but not running at the same time, i only use the Anti spyware apps for on demand scans, no real issues to report

[pabrate]

You guys are too scared
I see no reason to even run one AV, let alone more.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by pabrate

You guys are too scared
I see no reason to even run one AV, let alone more.

No disrespect, but this is a classic.

[Hungry Man]

Originally Posted by cozumel

I completely agree with everything you state (in your entire post, even if I only quoted a tiny part). The theory is completely sound and is the basis, foundation, of every system I build and configure. I have never tested this theory and was hoping someone here had done so. I have basically used the statements from av manufacturers and ms to support my theory which is quite unsatisfactory.
I was kinda hoping that someone here had done some testing and would be able to post the results demonstrating how running two (or more) AVs together reduces effectiveness.

That is the only reason I have not expressed my opinion. I have nothing except theory to support my argument. Without the justification, my theory means nothing (except in my head).

Does that make sense?

Yup. As long as you understand that this is a widely accepted idea and that there have likely been tests in the past and that there's no real reason to believe that this isn't the case, of course.

[pabrate]

Originally Posted by John Bull

No disrespect, but this is a classic.

None taken, but classic what ?

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by pabrate

None taken, but classic what ?

Classic what ?

Well it`s kinda like bombing up the Freeway on your Harley at 150 mph with no brakes.

John