Multi-AV Programs

I have tried the ones I listed. The heaviest one on my machine by far was F-secure followed by Trustport & G Data. G Data uses lots of memory, however I saw very little effect on system performance. I ended up buying G Data & am happy with my purchase.

 

I applaud those who experiment with courses 'outside the box'. It is how one learns the most. To say that more than one fw or more than one av, or more than one anything can't be done is to stop pressing. Not that doing these things is always going to work, but often you find things work on one box and not another. Leaving you scratching your head, and learning.

I suppose anyone reading this thread, wondering about thier own security, and how this might apply to them, might be confused. These sort of things go against the grain of coventional wisdom.

I think rather than relying on day to day use of such testbeds, one would be better off to follow principles set forth by Mrkvonic. Perhaps tempered with a grain of extra measure if desired. He may be a minimalist, but his point in hand is true. You don't HAVE to go to such extremes to achieve 'one-ness' with your security.

Nice topic though, full of good experimenting.

Sul.

 

i dont know, how is it;


MultiCore AntiVirus & AntiSpyware 2.0000.00021

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/MultiCore-AntiVirus-AntiSpyware.shtml

A new unique product reliably defends PC against computer malware and on-line threats at highest security levels. Antivirus labs of individual vendors are just unable to handle with enormous number of virus signatures appearing every day. A product runs five antivirus and antispyware scan-engines provided by AVG Technologies CZ s.r.o., FRISK Software International, Norman ASA, Lavasoft AB and Sunbelt Software Inc. without performance degradation.

 

Looks really cool - checking it now.

 

I did think I had ended this very interesting thread, but quite a few posts have come in since.

My conviction has been fully outlined in detail - read my posts. I will not post again ( I hope ) but will read every one of your valued comments.

I personally think this subject is common to every net user and the posts are a great help to all. Keep them coming, it will provide a valuable reference for many users.

Just bear in mind one thing - multiple AV`s, providing they are reputable programs DO work and work without any problems whatsoever.

Making blunt unsubstantiated statements that only ONE AV system is possible, otherwise a monumental Apocalypse will descend upon us, is rather irrational and inconsistent with logical thought and probably out-of-date.

Those who advocate this impending hypothetical disaster should provide some factual evidence that counter-acts the unblemished success of running multiple AV`s, otherwise it is just an opinion and EVERYBODY has one of those.
KAS

!!!! I would hope that the designers and technicians at each of these major AV companies would have adopted the common practice in all technical work, of carrying out a CONFLICT test in their laboratories against all their major competitors products, to eliminate this factor before releasing their own product.
Not to do this invites marketing chaos and tarnishing their company name.
This is probably why we CAN run these AV`s as multi-protection - they do NOT conflict at all. My five do not.

 

Thats cool i didden't know that, I will look into it further

 

Perhaps you are right, in that it is a bit of a blunt statement. (A bit like saying "speed kills" is a bit of a blunt statement in respect to road users.) (No, let's not go there.)
Both statements are true, but obviously (it would appear) there are exceptions. Personally I have seen a number of systems with 2 AV's installed that were slowed to a crawl, and sometimes had other issues also. (Norton was usually the application left dormant, while AVG or Avast were the active AV's.) Removal of the dormant AV sped things right up. I've also read about this on forums. A lot. So I would suggest that, blunt or not, it is good advice, at least until you know what you are doing and can make the appropriate tests (including under the hood) to confirm there is no problem.

Which 5 are they, then? I only saw evidence of two on this thread. Three if you include the optional AV definitions included in ST, an Antispyware.

 

The only exception is if your in a delorean traveling at 88 MPH then speeding is probably a good thing.

And as long as you keep your two AV software on different jobs you should be fine, Also running both AVG + AVAST! did not slow me down at all.

 

Only if you know the bridge will definitely have been completed at the "new" time you get to it!

 

AVG 8.5
Spywareblaster
Spyware Terminator
COMODO IS
Spybot

I "think" that counts to FIVE, every one of which were mentioned in my post No.10, which you have apparently missed.
All have Realtime except SWB, which lays in ambush with it`s nice little booby-traps.

I do not intend to argue about all this. I have raised a very interesting and radical thread, stated my experiences VERY clearly and have no intention of repeating them over and over again.

Just give others a chance to come in with their valued and useful comments - perhaps we will both learn a few new tricks.
KAS

 

You have raised an interesting thread. Not that radical, though. The fact is, only two of those are AV's. And if the AV component of CIS is not installed, you only have one.
SpywareBlaster, as you have correctly pointed out, is not an AV. In fact, it has no realtime (nor any other) file scanning at all; it modifies the registry to prevent (or reduce permissions) of certain websites.
Spybot is an antispyware.
SpywareTerminator is an antispyware. That it may use AV definitions as part of its process is not relevant.
Do you actually have the AV part of CIS installed and active, alongside AVG (which presumably is active also) ?

 

Spyware-Terminator has an active realtime AV scanner useing the ClamAV engine so that would still count.

And i like this thread because i like to try new things.

 

The problem with that assertion is that AV scanners are somehow definitive methods of security and the more you run the higher your security will be.Alas this isn't necessarily so,while adding additional engines may increase your detection rate slightly,there are far more efficient and effective ways to increase security.A simple thing such as running your browser sandboxed will give you a far greater benefit than running 5 or 6 real time scanners without the impact on resources.But of course at the end of the day we all run the security that we feel happy with,so if multiple scanners make you feel safe and don't cause noticeable issues then that's fine.

 

In keeping to some form of logic here, your wording is slightly askew. 'without any problems whatsoever' applies to your specific hardware/software setup. I would say that until you have successfully applied your 'scheme' to many computers comprising many different hardware/software combinations, your statement would be best as 'works for me' or 'from my testing appears to work just fine'. My opinion anyway.

Again, while I would not argue that more than one AV will fail to work, I would also not say that using multiple AV or indeed using no AV will make or break anything. Apocalypse WILL descend on peeps. At least, those who don't have the desire to really become a geek. And even geeks, when they let thier guard down and become lazy, can get into problems. The difference is both in that geeks can fix thier problems (normally) and geeks usually use programs that are lean, efficient and best in class protection. Always exceptions...

I know you appreciate cutting to the chase on things. Finding the simple logic behind topics. Do you really think challenging someone to provide facts that multi-AV is better or worse is necessary to your opinion? lol, as you know, these are all opinions based off user experience. Rarely is there some solid truths that are PURE facts that end these types of debates.

Keep up the 'make you think' topics Kas, I enjoy them.

Sul.

 

Sully. if there are 2 av programs on the computer and they are stalling each other and freezing the computer. what is the best way to solve this

 

Uninstall one, Or keep one on Local monitor and one on Web monitor.

 

You could determine more by testing. Try to disable the service or autostartup for one of them. The other is running at bootup. Then perhaps you can try starting the other one (the services) after the first is up. Maybe there is a conflict during bootup.

yes, you can uninstall. But if you are testing anyway, why not see when the conflict occurs. There are probably other methods, but that is an easy on to start with.

Sul.

EDIT: As 3DFireStarteR says, make on or the other have it's guard on, the other off. And vice-versa. See what happens. Personally, I rarely scan my computer. I like Avira just for the guard. I guess you gotta decide how you want to run things, maybe more than one AV is right for you. Maybe not.

 

The authors website doesn't load for me...I'm a little suspicious Or maybe the product has been discontinued?

 

I couldn't agree more, if the computer is believed to be clean in the first place with the guard on it is enough. Although one could argue that a zero day virus could theoretically slip through the guard, and be caught by the scanner a week later once the new definition of the zero day is ready. This is the reason that having sandboxing/virtualization as well makes the computer practically impenetrable.

 

I do find most of the posts on this issue extremely informative and cover the wide variety of systems and programs we all use in a logical and sensible manner, obviously by very knowledgeable users.

A few posts are preposterous. To blatantly state that multi-AV usage is a "disaster" or will cause all kinds of trouble, is irrational and bordering on paranoiac nonsense rather equivalent to the fanatical enthusiasm expressed by members of the Flat Earth Society.

Obviously it depends on each individual system and the AV`s plus other security programs being used. The combinations are infinite.

As I have stated clearly several times, I have Windows XP Home, SP3 and IE7. I have used several different AV and other security programs running in unison for over 4 years with no trouble at all. Perfect harmony and a real clamp on intrusions. My PC is clinically clean, my intrusions are very few and my surfing habits are impeccable.

I have a belt-and-braces security simply to stop any bandits coming in should I fall into the naive trap of relying on ONE single barrier, a risky practice recommended in some of these posts.

I use Spybot, AVG, Spyware Terminator, Spywareblaster, COMODO IS at present plus the Windows security pack enabled, all running nice and sweetly and each catching their share of bad guys when they pop up. Plus several manual goodies like Malwarebytes to play with. I have used other combinations over the years, again with no trouble.

FACT - multi-AV and other security programs CAN be run in tandem with no trouble at all. It obviously depends on your choice and set-up. Mine must be a good arrangement, admittedly by accident and not intent.

Just avoid making irrational statements that multi-AV use is a disaster, it is simply utter nonsense.
KAS

 

Ok Kas

what did your actual point now?..

if you mean..you can using 2 or more AV in same time...& realtime/resident/protection enabled....i recomend you to use Kaspersky AV & NOD32 in same time..& see what the disaster in your PC.,,,,or,,if you don't like them..try Norton AV,McAfee & Panda AV combination..

Avira is a very good secondary AV..It's also allowed you to install the only scanner,,without resident shield...

i'm ,in my laptop..i'm use ESS v4,Spware Blaster,Spybot,Avira Free,Malwarebytes & 2 local AV,,..Ansav & Smadav..but only the ESS realtime protection is enabled...
why?because i hate slow computer,,because i'm sure ESS good enough to blocks malware,virus,spyware etc..,,because i don't need so many RTP....i can use the rest of them to perform an on demand scanner..,

or..if your point was why you get warned by AVG,,to don't install 2 or more AV..i could say it's all about bussines.....Norton & McAfee were never can be installed in same computer...

fix our behaviour in internet is a great preventing our PC from get infected

i'm apologize for my english..

 

I am not advocating that the whole world install a massive battery of AV`s on their PC`s, just saying that multi-AV`s work fine without any problems providing your set-up and choice of AV`s all blend in harmony. Mine do as I have said many, many times.
I am not even interested in speed. One has to compromise between security and response times. Each to his own on that. It is usually called judgement.

Neither do I care about Norton, McAfee, NOD32, Kaspersky or anything else.

Why should I try programs that are not compatible, especially if you have to pay for them ? I favor versatility, universal adaptation and operational compatibility in a product.

I am not in the experimental game seeking to blow my PC up for a giggle, just specifying what does work ( all freebies ) on my computer and thus dispensing the raggle-taggle old myth that multi-AV`s are taboo.

The single program philosophy is of course paramount in the bible of instructions to customers IF you are producing and selling a product. We all know that one from wide experience. Try car spares for starters or even better, printer manufacturers biblical therapy on how any alternative ink cartrdges other than their very own will not work.

The entrenched attitude towards single AV monopoly obviously does apply to the products you mention, but we do not all install such restrictive programs on our computers, least of all pay for them. I have none of the products you state - good luck with them.
KAS

 

Kas,love your post #30 edit,I hope.Keep posting as you are up to three past,lol.

 

Granted, this configuration works. And perhaps it would work on a number of different hardware/software configurations.

I know from experience coding, that when you expect your 'thing', multi AV, multi FW, program you make etc, to work on all machines, often you find failure. Not due to your testbed failing. Only due to the massive amount of differentiation available in pc's.

I completely get your point here. The question is, will other user's be able to, without problem, recreate what you are sharing. They might, I have no idea. One thing for sure, and what I find as the value of this thread, some will try what you lay out. And perhaps many will find indeed that it works over a wide range of variables. Whether or not this layout is better or worse is beside the point. The crux is that these kinds of posts spur experimenting. And that is always good. IMHO anyway.

There are those that will say 'this is all wrong'. I figure it breaks down into 2 types. One type has read this is the truth. The other type has experienced this to be the truth. Either way, saying it is wrong or should not be done or can't be done is not the truth. The truth is, in computing with pc's, that you won't know until you try. And in defense of those who naysay, often it is the program designers themselves that have gone through testing, and have with facts themselves said 'don't mix apples and oranges or explosions will occur'. I think this is often correct advice, from the standpoint of the testbeds they used and the results they found.

I think with all the variables that can exist, it is hard to know until you try. I guess that applies to everything in life though.

Sul.

 

Yes as long as you have a backup image to hand experimentation is most informative.