AV compatibility

I have NAV2003 and also run Gladiator about three times a week. After reading these threads over the last several weeks I would like to put another scanner (Avast or AVG or AVwin) on as the resident scanner and use NAV as a secondary. How would the best way to do this be and will I have compatibility issues. Need advice before I try it.
cat

 

Hi,

all I can say is that avast and Norton will cause serious problems when installed on the same machine.

We're currently finding a work around for this incompatibility...

Vlk

 

I thought I would post this here also:

I tried PC-Cillin 2002 on my w2k box as a backup to Avast! 4 this weekend just for grins.

Avast! and ZA+ play together very nicely, and I'm very happy with the two, but ZA definitely did *not* like PCC's WebTrap feature. Crashed the entire machine to a reboot twice, before I could disable everything.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but thought I'd post this as an advisory. It's a shame, because I like PCC.

 

If you want to use PCC with another firewall, I believe you can do a custom install and not install the firewall or the web trap. You are right about the web trap and other firewalls, period. I don't know any other firewall that gets along well with webtrap and I would view that in the same light as two firewalls.

 

Hi guys,

About running 2 AV's, 2 firewalls, PC-Cillin.

I currently run W2K PRO SP3 + all patches.

AV: PC-Cillin [WEBTrap, POP3, Firewall ALL enabled]
2nd Firewall: Kerio Personal Firewall
2nd AV: Gladiator Anti-Virus [On Demand scanning only of course no Real Time Monitor]

Now, the above configuration for ME is working fine. All run happily together, no conflicts.

With PC-Cillin's Firewall, it is blocking INBOUND, but I did not change it's default OUTBOUND [2003 version you can control Outbound, not in 2002 though]. I have set up rules with Kerio for Outbound.

So if you run the above you will stand a much better chance of playing all together. However, that's for me, your system may be different

Cheers, TAS

 

Root/Tassie,

Thanks for your replies. I am running w2k sp3 w/all service packs also.

I did a custom install of PCC to disable the firewall and webtrap, but perhaps I missed something.

What the heck, maybe *that's* the problem--didnt accept the defaults!

Who knows. At any rate. It's fun to experiment. I'll try a different install next time--maybe ZA+ will love a default install.

 

Gladiator is still under development. This software is only for testing purposes and should not be used as protection on normal working systems!

What is AVwin? For Avast or AVG both are worse than NAV. So why do you want to change to less protection?

Running an additional antivirus software besides NAV can be tricky. You have to make sure that all on-access components are disabled otherwise you will run into serious problems. I would not recommend you to do so as the programs you mentioned are less effective than NAV.

wizard

 

I realize Gladiator is Alpha software and only use it as such.

Got the name AVwin wrong. it is AntiVir Personal Edition. http://www.free-av.com/

I have used the Gladiator so far with no problems with NAV. I know I should disable the "guard" part of it before using another scanner but I have forgotten to do this without harm . . . so far.
Thaks
cat

 

To Wizard from Firefighter!

I think it is quite strongly said that Avast (4) is less effective than Norton. We must remember, that the beauty is in the watcher's eye!

Avast 4 Pro is capable to detect more viruses from your PC than Norton with one full scan. That's a fact because of it has better archives scanning capability.

I have read several times that only all executable scannings are enough.

If that is so, there is no disagreement that Norton is better than Kaspersky, because Norton has won more VB 100 % Awards. The only that matters are those clean in the Wild results with only in the on access scannings.

The whole mail scanning feature with all av-programs is also pure waste, because on access scannings are always capable to prevent serious disasters to happen after all executable files were opened, there isn't any risk to disasters.

The new viruses are so slow, that an av-program can always prevent the consequences. There have never been so quick virus infections in the net, that the on access feature of an av-program couldn't cure!

Those open questions are not resolved only by answering either "Yes" or "No", there is always at least one "It depends on..."!

After all these, the are also many resource questions to av-users, which they have to resolve and Norton is never among the winners when we are talking about light resourses.


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"


Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

That's a fact. As you read so much av tests you should know this.

Untrue.

No. Archive scanning is a 'nice to have' feature but it has nothing really to do with virus detection/protection. There is no way you can be infected by malware that is archived.

Good joke. If you do such statements you should look at the full picture: If it comes to trojan and worm protection, KAV is more effective as it has a much more powerfull unpacking engine.

No. As I wrote often before: you can believe in ITW detection but most companies that follow this approach do not care about other malware that will not count as ITW like backdoor trojans. Those companies mostly do not care about unpacking capabilities (and VB does not test this either). For example the Opaserv-worm that is spreading currently has some variants that are just different because they were packed differently. Many av companies had to update their signatures again while KAV users where already protected due to the powerfull unpacking engine of KAV.

Basically for me personally I prefer to have an antivirus software that is able to handle complex viruses (even when those are only zoo). Take for an example the Magistr-worm that was ITW some time ago. It was highly complex. Kaspersky was one of the first companies that was able to deliver a proper detection with the regular signature updates while other companies needed up to 14 days to deliver that. Also the software needs to have a powerfull unpacking engine to deal with backdoors or newer worm threats.

wizard

 

To Wizard from Firefighter!

"If that is so, there is no disagreement that Norton is better than Kaspersky, because Norton has won more VB 100 % Awards." Yeah, that was a joke, you got it!

The argument, that Avast 4 Pro is capable to find more viruses from your PC is based on the capability to detect files from your PC, so what more detected files that more possibilities to detect a virus.

The so called detectection rates among those programs in VirusBulletin are so close together, that only so kind of detection rates are more or less an academic problem!

An other issue, you can run several programs in your PC at the same time which are opening archived complex infected files, your av-program isn't always enough fast to remove all those consequences that the opening those archived files induces, and those files may be so old, that those viruses have already removed from the av:s virusbase.

Therefore it is better to remove those infected archived files from your PC before they are saved in.

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

To Wizard from Firefighter!

I said last before: "An other issue, you can run several programs in your PC at the same time which are opening archived complex infected files, your av-program isn't always enough fast to remove all those consequences that the opening those archived files induces, and those files may be so old, that those viruses have already removed from the av:s virusbase."

Congratulations, I have got into the corner. Because I am self a walking error, there are situations when my personal piffle generator is taking the full power from my ideas.

What I had to say was that those infected files inside the archives may get too old, that the virusbase has already been renewed so that the AV can't detect the virus anymore.

An other issue is that, are we absolutely sure about that the AV:s are enough fast to detect the complex viruses after we have opened those files before anything irreplaceable has happened?

But now I think this personal crusade is over and I have to seek new demanding adventures!


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!