Run Two AVs?

[E/B]

Have read that running two firewalls can result in conflict problems.
Does that same advice apply to running two AV items? Is there any
benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?
TIA

 

[Kelly]

Is there any benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?


Not a one, that I can think of. And would not advise it. Good luck, either
way.

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Q. "Have read that running two firewalls can result in conflict problems.
Does that same advice apply to running two AV items?"

A. Yes.

Q. "Is there any benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?"

A. None whatsoever.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| Have read that running two firewalls can result in conflict problems.
| Does that same advice apply to running two AV items? Is there any
| benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?
| TIA

 

[Rock]

Have read that running two firewalls can result in conflict problems.
Does that same advice apply to running two AV items? Is there any
benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?
TIA

Only one should be providing active protection. Scanning with a second
is fine. There are a variety of online scanners to use to supplement
your installed AV program.

Online and Downloadable Virus Scanning (not inclusive):

Panda ActiveScan
http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/com/activescan_principal.htm

Bit Defender Online Virus Scan:
http://www.bitdefender.com/scan/license.php

Symantec Online Virus and Security Scan:
http://security.symantec.com/ssc/home.asp

TrendMicro:
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp

McAfee Online Virus Scan:
http://www.mcafee.com/myapps/mfs/default.asp

RAV AntiVirus - Scan Online
http://www.ravantivirus.com/scan/

F-Secure:
http://support.f-secure.com/enu/home/ols.shtml

 

[Galen]

In E/B <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Have read that running two firewalls can result in conflict problems.
Does that same advice apply to running two AV items? Is there any
benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?
TIA

One scanning (meaning that under IDEAL circumstances the file will NOT be
accessable) will throw a false postive or negative at you with the second AV
application scanning in real time. I do recommend that you pick a freeware
option to leave INSTALLED but not running full time to use to second-guess
VERY suspicious files if you're that bothered. Security is a process and not
an application.

Galen

 

[Kelly]

Thank you and I agree!

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[Galen]

In Kelly <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Thank you and I agree!

While I'm controversial on many points I'm mainstream on others. In this I'm
pretty much run of the mill but thought I'd post support for your post and
give the answers so that the OP wouldn't come back and ask a lot of
questions unless the questions weren't generic such as "why?" I've always
found that better and, having read at least ten billion posts from you
(slight exageration or is that about right?) I've never had reason to doubt
or question you though have had a few times when I felt it was good to step
in and offer re-enforcements. If we give 'em all the information right off
from the start AND the tools to get more information then we've won.... I
hope... It's a winning battle or I'm an optimist. <rant> Education beats
application each and every time. </rant> Either way you could post FUD and
I'd probably find a way mathmatically to show you were right just to be an
antagonist

Galen

 

[Canopus]

Have read that running two firewalls can result in conflict problems.
Does that same advice apply to running two AV items? Is there any
benefit to be gained from such an arrangement?
TIA

Have only one running all the time and the other as a second choice for
doing full scans etc. so as to double check the first scan. I have heard
that one AV scanner can see the other AV programs virus definitions and give
a false positive thinking they are viruses so to be careful exclude
definitions of both applications in scans.

Rob

 

[Sunny]

I have not had a problem for two years, running AVG and Norton 2003
together.
(WinME and WinXP)

 

[Kelly]

Your posts always have value, Galen. Post away. BTW, like this:

Education beats application each and every time.

May borrow that from you. <w>

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[Galen]

In Kelly <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Your posts always have value, Galen. Post away. BTW, like this:


May borrow that from you. <w>

You can keep it. I've also taken to saying "Security is a process, not an
application." Which I don't think is original at all but can't find the
origin. I've Googled and pondered, read and re-read. I just don't know but
it's a handy saying that makes a lot of sense. Too many people feel that
they're protected with their software when they're better protected by being
alert to what their software's saying and, at times, what it's not saying.

Galen

 

[Galen]

In Sunny <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

I have not had a problem for two years, running AVG and Norton 2003
together.
(WinME and WinXP)

Allow me to ask you a question. What if AVG has a definition for malware.exe
which contains a virus and Norton doesn't? Then, to further this, what if
Norton scans it first and deems it clean as it hasn't definitions for it?
While it's being scanned by Norton it's "locked" in that nothing can use it
until it's been given a passing grade from Norton. AVG, however, tries to
scan, gets an I/O error, and might pass it without warning. The executable
is now potentially active. This is entirely hypothetical and I can't support
it. I've sat here for a bit and taken the time to look around the 'net to
see what I find and I can't find a good reason other than the hypothetical
situation I've given above though most people tout system resources as the
reason.

The best link I've found so far on the subject is here:
http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsupport/detail.aspx?guid=&ErrorID=23904

It skips my thoughts on the process entirely and focuses on stability issues
though I still feel that mine's likely a more valid threat as stability
isn't really a threat, it's more a pain in the butt.

Galen

 

[E/B]

Thanks, all. Concensus seems to be "one is enuf", an occasional
separate system scan might be in order but two real-time are iffy.
Galen's link below to SmartComputing was instructive.

Galen wrote:
: : In : : Sunny <[email protected]> had this to say:
: :
: : My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
: :
: : : I have not had a problem for two years, running AVG and Norton
: : : 2003 together.
: : : (WinME and WinXP)
: :
: : Allow me to ask you a question. What if AVG has a definition for
: : malware.exe which contains a virus and Norton doesn't? Then, to
: : further this, what if Norton scans it first and deems it clean as
: : it hasn't definitions for it? While it's being scanned by Norton
: : it's "locked" in that nothing can use it until it's been given a
: : passing grade from Norton. AVG, however, tries to scan, gets an
I/O
: : error, and might pass it without warning. The executable is now
: : potentially active. This is entirely hypothetical and I can't
: : support it. I've sat here for a bit and taken the time to look
: : around the 'net to see what I find and I can't find a good reason
: : other than the hypothetical situation I've given above though most
: : people tout system resources as the reason.
: :
: : The best link I've found so far on the subject is here:
: :
http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsupport/detail.aspx?guid=&ErrorID=23904
: :
: : It skips my thoughts on the process entirely and focuses on
: : stability issues though I still feel that mine's likely a more
: : valid threat as stability isn't really a threat, it's more a pain
: : in the butt.
: :
: : Galen
: : --
: : Signature changed for a moment of silence.
: : Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

 

[Canopus]

Thanks, all. Concensus seems to be "one is enuf", an occasional
separate system scan might be in order but two real-time are iffy.
Galen's link below to SmartComputing was instructive.

The thing is that if you are going to keep a second AV installed, but, not
running so as to double check the first AV now and again then you may as
well not install a second AV, but instead, do an online scan from time to
time. Doing that not only do you save disk space, but, with a good online
scanner you are ensured you are scanning with the very latest definitions.

Rob

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I've also taken to saying "Security is a process,
not an application." Which I don't think is original at all but
can't
find the origin. I've Googled and pondered, read and re-read. I
just
don't know but it's a handy saying that makes a lot of sense.
Too
many people feel that they're protected with their software
when
they're better protected by being alert to what their
software's
saying and, at times, what it's not saying.

It certainly makes a lot of sense. I've heard the saying before,
but don't know the origin either. But if you want to do more
research on it, note that it's sometimes alternatively quoted as
"Security is a process, not a product."

 

[Sunny]

In Sunny <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:


Allow me to ask you a question. What if AVG has a definition for
malware.exe which contains a virus and Norton doesn't? Then, to further
this, what if Norton scans it first and deems it clean as it hasn't
definitions for it? While it's being scanned by Norton it's "locked" in
that nothing can use it until it's been given a passing grade from Norton.
AVG, however, tries to scan, gets an I/O error, and might pass it without
warning. The executable is now potentially active. This is entirely
hypothetical and I can't support it. I've sat here for a bit and taken the
time to look around the 'net to see what I find and I can't find a good
reason other than the hypothetical situation I've given above though most
people tout system resources as the reason.

The best link I've found so far on the subject is here:
http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsupport/detail.aspx?guid=&ErrorID=23904

It skips my thoughts on the process entirely and focuses on stability
issues though I still feel that mine's likely a more valid threat as
stability isn't really a threat, it's more a pain in the butt.

I'm probably the last person to ask, but the problem hasn't surfaced in the
last two years.
Two PCs (one dual boot, WinME and WinXP) both with Zone Alarm Pro and two
A/V.
(Uninstalled Norton from WinME as I don't access the net often with it)
You have me wondering now, as a home user, if it's worth the expense of
maintaining two A/V programs, as I intend to keep paying for Zone Alarm.

AVG seems to co-exist with Norton, but I have read of a few conflicts
between Norton and McAfee.

 

[Richard Goh]

I have even had AVG find a virus and indicated that it was in the Norton
Quarantine folder.

 

[Galen]

In Sunny <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

I'm probably the last person to ask, but the problem hasn't surfaced
in the last two years.
Two PCs (one dual boot, WinME and WinXP) both with Zone Alarm Pro and
two A/V.
(Uninstalled Norton from WinME as I don't access the net often with
it) You have me wondering now, as a home user, if it's worth the
expense of maintaining two A/V programs, as I intend to keep paying
for Zone Alarm.
AVG seems to co-exist with Norton, but I have read of a few conflicts
between Norton and McAfee.

Disable the AVG, let Norton run (or the other way around if you want but
it's probably easier to disable the auto-run of AVG than for Norton) and
then update AVG once a week and scan right after. If Norton missed it then
AVG *might* catch it then. When you run the scan with AVG disable Norton by
right clicking and exiting the application from the system tray probably.
When ever you're in doubt the right click > scan option will still scan with
AVG. Your resources will improve and if my above statement is anywhere near
correct then your security will improve too.

Galen

 

[Canopus]

I have even had AVG find a virus and indicated that it was in the Norton
Quarantine folder.

LOL...I've just imagined a scenario where running AVG it quarantines a virus
found in Norton's Quarantine folder then running Norton it quarantines the
same file found in AVG's quarantine folder then running AVG..... Unskilled
user wonders where all these viruses are coming from even with two AVs
installed. Hence reason to exclude both virus definition and quarantine
folders in both AVs for scans.

Rob