Ask Slashdot: Should Average Consumers Install More Than One Antivirus Program On Their System? 159
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?
For once use the microsoft shit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. The buy the same signatures everybody else has. Also, installing two AW solutions may well result in them interfering with each other. Not a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the AV companies offer a free, stand alone scanner that doesn't need installation. Grab a couple of those and run them periodically.
Re:For once use the microsoft shit (Score:4, Interesting)
That is a possibility to avoid interference. For suspicious files, you can also upload them to VirusTotal to basically get almost all scanners. Still, unless you behave in a very risky way, what MS offers is quite enough.
Re: For once use the microsoft shit (Score:3)
Isn't that a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse?
Re: (Score:2)
"That is a possibility to avoid interference. For suspicious files, you can also upload them to VirusTotal to basically get almost all scanners. Still, unless you behave in a very risky way, what MS offers is quite enough."
"Isn't that a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse?"
Eh? I'm really not seeing how that analogy fits here.
Re: (Score:2)
Me neither. Seems to be an attempt to say something negative, but without actual understanding of what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL It looks like I threaded it under the wrong comment. It was meant to be a response to the comment above that said that MS' version was all one needed.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, it happens. No problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly suspect that weed was a factor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Indeed. The whole mantra that "you should run AV" is BS, because they offer preciously little protection anyway. But at least MSE does not get in the way.
Re:For once use the microsoft shit (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Eset NOD32 is a prime example. It was the leanest meanest and most effective AV program out there. Now it's underperforming bloatware.
Oh my lordy lord, AVP is the biggest and best example EVAR. When AVP first hit the scene (in the win2k days) it was amazing. The performance impact was negligible even on the hundreds-of-MHz class single-core machines of the day. Today, it will eat all your performance and then shit on your desktop.
Re: (Score:1)
Even worse, it's been the main offender when it comes to flagging official Windows OS files as malevolent and deleting them, requiring a reinstall of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean AVG or Alien Vs Predator...?
Re:For once use the microsoft shit (Score:5, Funny)
Haven't you heard? Microsoft actually CALLS YOU, and tells you that you have a virus!
Re:For once use the microsoft shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: For once use the microsoft shit (Score:2)
They may have access to the source code. It's called Shared Source Intiative, they almost certainly qualify. The program has been around for ages.
Re: (Score:3)
2nd this, AV gives people a false sense of security. They run risky executables and think that the AV will stop them when a lot of the time AV will sit there and not even notice, or it'll notice a month later that you've got a trojan but all it will do is tell you because the nasty things are so hard to eradicate once they're in.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it only lags behind on so-called "heuristic" or "machine learning" or "artificial intelligence" recognition tests. These tests don't use known virus signatures, they use programs designed to mimic virus activity. The hope is that your AV solution will catch one of these "bad programs" doing its thing and quarantine it, so potential future threats are blocked.
Everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Most people's data is non-privileged, and botnets don't require privileges to operate as part of a DDoS. Getting root is no longer the only security concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The users in your computer shouldn't be the same as the users of your computer. You can have different users for different roles, as many as you feel like remembering passwords for.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is easy to convince non-tech users to us an ad blocker, the NoScript gets more resistance since they have to think about which sites to give permission or not (my children hate NoScript).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some websites have 20-30 external domains...
This precisely is what clogs the tubes more than anything else. It is the single biggest problem in internet traffic today. It's like DDOS in reverse. Take a.fsdn.com, please...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Avast runs well in parallel with Windows Defender, so i leave both on.
Avast seems to trigger warnings from dodgy web sites and Defender doesn't, so it seems to be providing additional protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because MsMpEng.exe consuming 100% cpu during simple file operations is better.
Windows defender is the TSA of antivirus. Target everything and anything for scan regardless of how impossible it is to be infected with anything harmful in the least efficient way possible using days old definitions that can't target zero day threats.
Some commercial products really are much better IMO.
stating the obvious,... (Score:5, Informative)
- 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
Re:stating the obvious,... (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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:stating the obvious,... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My experience was similar many years ago, when it was like pulling teeth to get sound cards and WiFi adapters to work with Linux; at some point in the mid 2000s, it seemed to reverse - I had a much easier time installing Linux on laptops than I did trying to install Windows XP. After that, it seemed pretty even, having the occasional problem with both OSs.
Now it's turned back - in my very limited recent experiences. Both Windows 10 and Ubuntu seem really happy on my newest laptops, I haven't had any issue
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't use windows for browsing (especially if you browse to sites you don't trust)
lol. Why stop there. Just get everybody to code their own OS. Much better.
No (Betteridge's law) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The exception that proves the rule?
NYT? (Score:2)
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)
Re:NYT? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Think of it as the worst district in the nearby city. Don't drive around looking for things to do.... don't loiter idly, looking for fun
There's no need to search anywhere
Happiness is here, have your share
If you know you're loved, be secure
Paradise is love to be sure [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One is one too many (Score:2, Informative)
Antivirus programs are a threat, not a mitigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Antivirus programs are a threat, not a mitigation.
The largest threat is the idiot behind the keyboard.
Good luck with that mitigation. The masses don't give a shit about security. Never have. Never will.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fork of an older Seamonkey release that supports HTML5 and runs on Windows 95.
http://toastytech.com/files/95browsing.html [toastytech.com]
Though it might be a bit challenging to get Windows 95 going on modern hardware. If I remember right there's a bug that will BSOD Windows 95 on boot once you get past about 400-500 MHz or so with clock speed. There's a patch, but you have to apply the patch from within Windows...
Re: (Score:2)
A friend bought a Win 8.1 PC a couple of years ago with (I think) Norton preloaded, one of those "free for a month or three" deals. She did not want that particular virus scanner, she wanted AV or Avira. She downloaded installed her scanner of choice.
Windows 8.1 could not handle this, it did a fallback to the previous working config and all of the packages she had installed after buying the PC were gone.
Don't try this at home folks.
Re: (Score:2)
> Windows 8.1 could not handle this, it did a fallback to the previous working config and all of the packages she had installed after buying the PC were gone
A) This is why you don't run Win 8
B) This is why full BARE METAL BACKUPS before installing/updating software is a Good Idea (Aomei and Veeam are good places to start.)
Re: (Score:2)
> Some people even argue that antivirus programs cause more vulnerabilities that they solve and advise not to install any.
In the early 2000's there used to be NUMEROUS problems with Norton and McAffe bringing a working machine to a C-R-A-W-L.
Also back in the early 2000's I actually ran without an anti-virus for about 6 years. Never got any viruses. When MS Security Essentials came out I decided to give it a go. It detected the one virus I had _already_ manually quarantined and renamed: foo_MAYBE_VIRUS
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, you should be running ANYTHING _first_ in a Virtual Machine (or Sandboxie)
+1. This is also a great way to avoid pc slowdown from temporary files. Just delete the VM (or Sandbox) for a new one for a fresh start. Sandboxie is more friendly to casual users though.
Two: one ignores NSA's viruses, the other KGB's (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
clam win and MS Essentials (Score:1)
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.
Wrong question (Score:2)
Youve never Met asploit have you (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Bouncers (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Security software won't stop social engineering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scamming is not the same problem, and shouldn't be treated as such. People being conned by a hooker don't complain to Trojan and Durex, do they?
Re:Security software won't stop social engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:3)
Less than one would be better.
Just so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Which is nothing compared to dealing with threadfall, amirite? How are you getting electricity in your hold, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power of course, that or wind power. Dragon fire does not cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
hehe Those dragons sure are big... First time I've heard of that crapware McAfee being referred to as McCaffrey.. When the original owner of McAfee, whose last name *IS* McAfee, tells you McAfee AV is crap, you *should* believe HIM... Last company I worked for before I retired used McAfee AV/ePo on our Windows XP systems (this was pre-2010, mind you.. I've been retired since then), and THEN they got the wild idea that our 100 node Linux compute cluster needed the Linux version of McAfee.. Oh how I tried to
Re: Just so (Score:2)
Sticking to... (Score:3)
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".
recommend (Score:3)
>" 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.
Why is my PC so slow (Score:1)
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 .....
Why are you an idiot? (Score:1)
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
Absolutely not (Score:2)
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
Average consumers should run macOS or ChromeOS (Score:2)
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.
The real question (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Running with that... how often do you learn about a virus because you or someone you know encountered it versus from vendor-driven press?
In over 30 years of being a computing professional, I've only encountered a couple of viruses on machines I use. Both were before '95. I haven't used an antivirus since 2005.
Not tech savvy (Score:2)
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.
It's a personal preference (Score:2)
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... [tinyurl.com] (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
Never! (Score:3)
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.
The right way to do that. (Score:2)
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 s
Should consumers install more than one antivirus (Score:2)
No, they should move to a Linux Distro [distrowatch.com] and quite frankly I'm amazed you have to ask such a question on slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
qouting your 2015 link:
ClamAV: Possibly Unwanted Application
Symantec: Suspecious
Re: (Score:2)