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/...
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.
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.
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.
Less than one would be better.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
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.
The real question is whether antivirus software does anything other than making money for vendors.
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.