Ask Slashdot: Should Average Consumers Install More Than One Antivirus Program On Their System?

Even though you would assume that people would know better, an anonymous reader writes, in my experience, I have found many who think installing more than one antivirus program on their computer is the right way to go about it. Some have installed as many as three third-party security suites, which among other things, takes a toll on the performance. This week the New York Times' tech tip section addresses the matter. From the article, which could be paywalled, but you don't have to read it in entirety anyway: Installing more than one program to constantly scan and monitor your PC for viruses and other security threats can create problems, because the two applications will likely interfere with each other's work. Clashing antivirus programs can cause the computer to behave erratically and run more slowly as the applications battle for system resources. Microsoft advises against running its Windows Defender security software on the same system with another installed third-party antivirus program. Likewise, antivirus software companies also warn against using other system security products when you are using theirs; Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Symantec all have articles on their sites explaining the potential problems in detail. Programs that do not constantly patrol your operating system, like mail scanners, may not be an issue. What do you folks recommend to people who are not as tech-savvy?

Comments

For once use the microsoft shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since microsoft came out with their windows defender I have seen no need to install any other virus software.

Re:For once use the microsoft shit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Microsoft AV solutions serve the one legitimate purpose of AV software: They absolve the person who installed the system from accusations of negligence when the user inevitably gets the system infected. No AV suite can prevent that, but if you don't install any, the lusers think you're the reason their computers got infected.

Other than that, MS AV is the least taxing on the system, but also lags behind on recognition rates. The former matters, the latter doesn't.

Re:For once use the microsoft shit

[arth1]

Microsoft Security has one thing going for it: it's lightweight.
Every now and then other AV software appears that is light and fast, but invariably they will bloat into a hideous five-headed hippo, simply because they are run by (or bought by) corporations that have to sell, and marketing departments thus demand more and more features. Eset NOD32 is a prime example. It was the leanest meanest and most effective AV program out there. Now it's underperforming bloatware. Norton Antivirus is another example. Peter Norton's software was usable, but what Symantec and an army of outsourced coders turned it into was a monstrosity.

There's no MBA alive that has understood that featuritis is a deadly disease. I know the schools teach it, including examples from several industries, but every single corporate executive believes that it doesn't apply to them.

But Microsoft doesn't have to sell on competition. It's a free (as in toilet paper) product. Their incentive is to reduce the number of people who calls Microsoft support with infected or bogged down machines.

Re:For once use the microsoft shit

[TheRaven64]

If they offered zero security, then that would be one thing. In fact, they often offer negative security. Last year, there was a vulnerability in Norton Antivirus that allowed arbitrary kernel-mode code execution. It would detect new files in the filesystem and scan them in the kernel (stupid design decision number one: the code scanning untrusted and expected-to-be-malicious data should be an unprivileged userspace process with read-only access to precisely one file). Unfortunately, their image decoder contained a vulnerability, so if your web browser or mail client dropped a png file on the filesystem, even if the user didn't ever open it, the system was compromised. Other AVs have had similar vulnerabilities. You're running some code that hooks into the OS, written by people that don't have access to the OS source code and don't know how many of the internals work, with maximum possible privilege. Does that sound like a good plan to you?

No

[louic]

Some people even argue that antivirus programs cause more vulnerabilities that they solve and advise not to install any. Besides that, they will make your computer ridiculously slow, and might interfere with each other, possibly causing crashes and false positives.

Re:No

[JaredOfEuropa]

Some are horrible in that respect, but others like Kaspersky and BitDefender are well behaved and very unobtrusive. Kaspersky has the very rare issue with false positives.

I wouldn't recommend doubling down on them though. What I would like to see, in addition to using a virus scanner, is a consumer grade device (or something in the router) that performs some useful intrusion / exfiltration detection on the LAN.

Re:stating the obvious,...

[geekmux]

- don't install shit you don't want/need (true for all os) - don't use windows for browsing (especially if you browse to sites you don't trust) - don't click and open every damn email and attachment you get ...

Telling the masses to not use Windows for browsing is like telling people to not drive 4-wheel vehicles for transportation. No matter how stupidly easy alternate OSes could be to operate, they're not mainstream, and therefore they are not the dominant option for the illiterate masses. And because users are obscenely lazy, a Windows alternative will have to become the default option.

As far as installing shit you don't want/need, that describes 95% of the inventory in every app store. Installing pointless shit has practically become a tradition in the mobile universe. I don't see that behavior changing unless marketing crap suddenly becomes unprofitable.

Re:NYT?

[arth1]

Not being a newpaper, but a person who started my career writing AV software in the days when AV software writers worked for themselves, not corporations, my recommendation is to not trust any antivirus software, and particularly not the popular ones.

The virus writers have access to AV software and design and test malware so it slips through as many major AV products as possible. The end result is that the AV software will only get signatures added for the threat days or weeks later, after the malware has ceased to be a threat.

Instead, use the internet with caution. Think of it as the worst district in the nearby city. Don't drive around looking for things to do. Don't trust the guy on the corner who tells you where there's fun to be had. Only go where you planned to go, and don't loiter idly, looking for fun. Someone will have fun, but it won't be you.

Re:Security software won't stop social engineering

[nctritech]

You missed the point. Manipulating the person behind the keyboard always wins. Actual malicious software is nowhere near as big of a problem as it used to be. The bad guys figured out a long time ago that it is way easier and safer to manipulate the user into willingly giving up their credentials and money than to attempt to exploit software flaws in their computers. Sure, there are still malicious things out there, but getting infected with them is a symptom of the same problem: the person using the mouse willfully takes an action that harms them.

Re:stating the obvious,...

[EricTDuckman1414]

I've got an old laptop, around five or six years old, that I refurbished and tried to load Linux on. No matter what distro's live iso I tried, the internal screen would go black after the initial text menu. An external monitor plugged into the laptop would work fine, but what's the friggin point of a laptop that only works when plugged into an external monitor? None of the dozens of suggestions I found on the web helped one bit. This is apparently a bug that goes back years. I gave up, installed Windows 10, and the damn thing works great. Linux is a long, LONG way from being acceptable for the casual user who just wants to use their computer and isn't interested in fidgeting with and tweaking an OS just to get it to load on their hardware, and calling them "obscenely lazy" for it is arrogant, elitist, and pointless.