Slashdot Mirror
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?
Ever since microsoft came out with their windows defender I have seen no need to install any other virus software.
- 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"What do you folks recommend to people who are not as tech-savvy?"
Don't take tech advice from a newspaper.
( I don't disagree about installing multiple anti-virus programs, but the NYT is not a highly regarded tech journal)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Antivirus programs are a threat, not a mitigation.
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.
Assuming that US-provided ones have been "assisted" by the NSA, and that at least one other has been "helped" by the KGB, a mix of the two might keep a few more evesdroppers at bay.
For a number of years I have been running MS Security Essentials for Real Time scanning and Clam Win on a weekly schedule. Clam Win will catch malware and other things that MS might miss. MS catches the odd real time threat. The other thing is to be careful of attachments and suspicious links and train other family members on good surfing practices. This has worked for me. Your mileage may vary.
Ask Slashdot: Should Average Consumers Install An Antivirus Program On Their Windows System, Nowadays?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Happy to introduce you :) Lol
[($)]
When talking to the uninitiated, I like to bring up an analogy using bouncers.
When you have bouncers from just one security firm, things are alright. He'll do his best to keep the baddies out, things can carry on mostly undisturbed. Things ain't perfect, but hey, whatcha gonna do.
On the other hand, if you hire additional bouncers from a different security firm, those two groups will spend most of their time shouting at each other, getting in scuffles, fucking things up for everyone.
This analogy is simple enough to sink in with mom & pop.
Let me know when antivirus software stops people from calling phone numbers on scare pages in the browser or believing that "Microsoft" is actually cold-calling them. The threat model has changed so much between the DOS days and today that the only truly effective security is not falling for scam artist trickery. I get bombed with targeted scams like "check your WHOIS data" that links to somewhere that definitely isn't my hosting provider all the time and I have to talk down "DO NOT TURN OFF COMPUTER, THIS IS MICROSOFT, CALL US" complaints from frightened people almost daily. 80% of the time those people have already willingly allowed the stranger to use their computer remotely.
I'm glad Syskey is getting tossed from Win10; in the meantime I load a reg file on everyone's machine that sets Notepad as the debugger for Syskey to make using it difficult, but I can't do anything to stop them from choosing to get "Microsoft" scammed.
I have only a single-digit count of computers with actual infections on them in the past year. I've seen hundreds of them with "COMPUTER HELP.txt" files on the desktop.
Less than one would be better.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
all OS'es get bugs and viruses. why is this still questioned?
cjacobs001
I found this out myself on my computer. I had Windows defender and McCaffrey anti virus software running and this caused programs to crash and my Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060 graphics card to lock up. I removed the McCaffrey software and everything cleared up. Just running Defender is probably best in Windows I think.
E Proelio Veritas.
Avira and Malware Bytes currently.
For the most part on anti-virus, Windows Defender will do, but for the average user these days it's more important to have a good anti-malware installed.
Because the average user keeps going into porn websites and shady Google results which install a whole ton of ad-ware, spyware toolbars and whatnot. Those won't be detected by anti-virus.
But these softwares have been stagnant for quite a while... this is one area that could use AI to teach and prevent a whole ton of users from commiting the same exact mistakes that people have been telling not to do since early Internet days.
I'd be particularly keen on an anti-malware software that would write a warning in big red letters when people click on obvious fishing scam e-mails something like: "ARE YOU FUCKING DUMB? STOP USING THE PC RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO IT".
>" What do you folks recommend to people who are not as tech-savvy?"
Run Linux or just get a tablet. That has been my recommendation for many years now.
Antivirus 1: background scanning file foo.dll
Antivirus 2: detected access to foo.dll, scanning file
Antivirus 1: detected access to foo.dll, scanning file
Antivirus 2: detected access to foo.dll, scanning file
Why is my PC so slow?
Antivirus 3: heuristics has detected unusual access to foo.dll, scanning file .....
Antivirus 1: background scanning file foo.dll
Antivirus 2: detected access to foo.dll, scanning file
Antivirus 1: detected access to foo.dll, scanning file
Antivirus 2: detected access to foo.dll, scanning file
Why is my PC so slow?
Antivirus 3: heuristics has detected unusual access to foo.dll, scanning file .....
The more important question is why you are playing with the poop in the toilet bowl
Installing multiple AV products is a bad idea. As the summary states, they tend to conflict with each other. Sometimes one will detect the other AV as malware and quarantine some of their files. I've also seen situations where installing multiple AV products will break things (e.g. the networking stack will stop working).
At its best, antivirus software is a necessary evil. It's going to have a negative impact on performance, and will probably inhibit legitimate functionality at some point. You should assume that your antivirus software is only going to catch old and obvious malware, and not rely on it for your system security. In that context, the best choice in antivirus software is the one that is least obtrusive, and using multiple products at the same time is counter-productive.
I love Linux and use it on my servers. Just so you know I'm not a rabid, metrosexual Apple fanboy. That said, on the desktop, I use macOS and on the couch, I've used a Chromebook. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of (but not all) problems can be avoided if the average consumer would just get a MacBook or a Chromebook.
Nothing wrong with Windows (I use it on my media PC) but you simply have to "keep driving on the regular highways". And that's just too much to ask from a regular consumer.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
The real question is whether antivirus software does anything other than making money for vendors.
What do you folks recommend to people who are not as tech-savvy?
Same thing as I would recommend to folks who are. NO!
I don't understand the tone of the summary. It implies there is a situation where it is a good idea to install multiple. There's not. Don't do it.
Saying I use Windows firewall cause it's as good as the rest, is a real common phrase. While they are unaware or forget anyone holding a certificate issued by Microsoft can pass through as if it didn't exist.
Finding the the best AV (which is all that's needed) can't really be done anymore. I used VX.Heavens http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybk... (long gone) and found at the time NOD32 (Eset) did around 85% and the best. The test was to download, open, and move the zip file contents elsewhere, and which did what when.
All that's available to use now is use the EICAR test file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that all AV's are capable of finding (it's hardcoded).
I long ago quit using an AV and put all my trust in a good hosts file, reliable Firewall (old version of Comodo), and to use autoruns on occasion to find the ones that might of been missed (one's running from the temp directory) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...
If one installs Comodo anymore, autoruns can also disable all of the Geek Squad crap. But Comodo fails the leaktext https://www.grc.com/lt/leaktes... (12 year old test) and not recommended. - Creates a virtual process but it still connects.
All that to say; your on your own - it's a personal preference.
Some of the worst possible performance I have ever seen in my life has been from multiple antivirus softwares fighting with each other for access to a file. For example, you browse to a folder that contains a zip file... Windows Defender starting to scan the file (it gets first dibs because hey, written by operating system manufacture, what do you think?), other antivirus hooks CreateFileW and starts to scan it too. Now you have two applications seeking back and forth over the ZIP FILE trying to unzip it so they can peer inside and "make it safe". It extended what should have been small browsing operations from just a few seconds to many, many minutes.
If you're evaluating antivirus software, a good measure is how much raw data reads they do when you're just browsing your file system and not opening any actual files. Some of them halt processes and scan the entire file when the file is even just queried from the file table (not even when actually opened), and you end up with file iteration taking as long as it takes to read the entire file contents.
There is no place in this world for antivirus.
If they're so dumb that they can't stop from clicking on executables, install windows S on their computer and let them suffer it. Its still more effective than antivirus is.
There is a right way and a wrong way to have multiple antivirus programs on the computer.
The right way: Only one of them can be using an active component that's looking out for viruses in realtime. You can manually run scans or schedule them, just make sure they don't overlap, those scans take time after all.
The wrong way: Any time you have scans overlap or have more than one realtime component running. They are trying to do the same thing with the same parts of the system, and that will usually slow your system, can cause obvious software issues, and can cause inobvious ones as well, like they don't work properly and miss things.
Warning: Antivirus programs have signatures of known viruses, and because of this they can have false positives on each other. Because of this you will have to set up each program to exclude the files and directories belonging to all the others, or you will probably get annoyed by lots of alerts from the false positives, and if they automatically quarantine or remove anything, they can eviscerate each other. You do NOT want that happening.
Honestly though, the improvement you get in antivirus security by using multiple programs is barely better than the best of the single best antivirus you're running, and may have no improvement at all. If they're free, hey, it's your system. But if you paid for them, you're wasting money.
(Years of testing and troubleshooting antivirus programs at a well known software company. Antivirus was my specialty. )
"Should Average Consumers Install More Than One Antivirus Program On Their System?"
No, they should move to a Linux Distro and quite frankly I'm amazed you have to ask such a question on slashdot.
I had to scroll a lot for this, you're getting lazy.
qouting your 2015 link:
ClamAV: Possibly Unwanted Application
Symantec: Suspecious
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
s/qouting/Quoting/
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
I always tell people who cannot think further than Windows to at least install VirtualBox and a virtual OS, be it Linux [that I wholeheartedly recommend] or Windows and browse the Internet from it. Then you don't need any AV even if you're not particularly computer literate.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti