Multiple real-time anti-malware programs

[Amphiprion]

Okay, so this is for those of you who've done this. I'm currently using Norton Internet Security 2010 as my primary AV/Firewall. I've had no problems with it at any point in time (and it is among the best, nowadays, according to most of the 3rd party comparatives) nor do I wish to change it. So, for that 1-2% (or less) of things that can slip through, I'm also using Malwarebytes Pro (IP blocking is handy and configurable, but mostly for auto updates and scans) and SUPERAntiSpyware Pro (also auto updates and scans)--both in real time along with Norton.

I've currently had zero issues or slowdown doing this and the developers all say they are completely compatible. If there is slowdown, it is very minimal. Anyway, I was reading up on the subject, and I had seen indications where they can silently interfere with each other (despite the fact that I've added exclusions to each), thereby reducing the ability to catch things in real-time. I'll admit this does worry me a bit, but does anyone have any evidence of this? I've looked and can't find anything substantial to support this. I've even gone to testing sites that have benign code that acts like malware to test everything. Norton caught everything before the others could. Doesn't seem like they are interfering, but I have no concrete way to tell. I've also checked all the security logs from each and none contain any instances or evidence of conflict.

This is a subject where I've seen tons of talk, but nothing to back it up. Any ideas or concrete evidence out there that I missed? I paid for the above programs for other reasons (again, auto updates and scheduled scanning), but the real-time protection is a perk that comes with them that I'd like to take advantage of--assuming it doesn't truly do more harm than good.

 

[Reefscape]

Trying to get my head around why your using multiple programs. My thinking, on reading the above, is that if Norton is picking up any virus' or malware before the others get chance, why have the others installed? Seems to me that Norton is in control, on the protection.

Personaly, i only run Sophos and Malwarebytes...One for AV and one for spyware.

 

[jbradt]

Okay, so this is for those of you who've done this. I'm currently using Norton Internet Security 2010 as my primary AV/Firewall. I've had no problems with it at any point in time (and it is among the best, nowadays, according to most of the 3rd party comparatives) nor do I wish to change it. So, for that 1-2% (or less) of things that can slip through, I'm also using Malwarebytes Pro (IP blocking is handy and configurable, but mostly for auto updates and scans) and SUPERAntiSpyware Pro (also auto updates and scans)--both in real time along with Norton.

I've currently had zero issues or slowdown doing this and the developers all say they are completely compatible. If there is slowdown, it is very minimal. Anyway, I was reading up on the subject, and I had seen indications where they can silently interfere with each other (despite the fact that I've added exclusions to each), thereby reducing the ability to catch things in real-time. I'll admit this does worry me a bit, but does anyone have any evidence of this? I've looked and can't find anything substantial to support this. I've even gone to testing sites that have benign code that acts like malware to test everything. Norton caught everything before the others could. Doesn't seem like they are interfering, but I have no concrete way to tell. I've also checked all the security logs from each and none contain any instances or evidence of conflict.

This is a subject where I've seen tons of talk, but nothing to back it up. Any ideas or concrete evidence out there that I missed? I paid for the above programs for other reasons (again, auto updates and scheduled scanning), but the real-time protection is a perk that comes with them that I'd like to take advantage of--assuming it doesn't truly do more harm than good.

You might consider putting a tinfoil hat on your computer. :rofl: Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Amphiprion]

I'm not actually that paranoid, but I have had some bad experience in the past when one nasty rootkit slipped past Norton. Otherwise, Norton has been stellar. I'm just trying to account for the small percentage that may slip by and I had already paid for the other programs as scanners (primarily because they both catch what the other does not when they are allowed to run by themselves). Just supporting the good anti-malware companies and trying to get the most bang out of my buck, I suppose. I just didn't want running them together to compromise everything like some suggest. I was wondering, in all, if anyone has any evidence (formal tests, etc.) where detection rates, realtime protection recognition, etc., were actually lower with these multiple programs running.

 

[excuzzzeme]

You might want to check out CNet located here. They have some reviews that you might be looking for. Rootkits are hard to guard against and often slip through regardless of the AV/anti-malware you use.

Using multiple 'real time' scanners is not recommended for many reasons. You actually gain little-to-nothing and can lose primary files due to the algorithms used regardless of exclusions.

Quit using IE and switch to a better browser such as FireFox, Safari, or Chrome.
FireFox has an add-on called "Ad Block" that does a great job.

"CCleaner" is a good stand-alone proggy but not automated.

Hijack This from Trend Micro is another that will scan your system and then you paste the results log for an interpretation of what it has found. It is a lengthy process but find almost everything in your system. It requires manual operation by you (the user) to remove possible negative malware that autoscanners do not find. This is a free utility and very worthwhile. The translator for your log file can be found here. I have been using it for years. WARNING - It is NOT for beginners! Although a somewhat tedious process, it is very good.

 

[dundadundun]

or k-meleon or opera or seamonkey... i like to have one or 2 extras i never use for backups just in case

i like ccleaner for a fast cleanup but not as a primary scanner. imo it leaves too much behind and several scan and clean operations are necessary. beware of the registry cleaner area on this program. it has disabled a handful of pc's that belong to friends of mine. i suggest using the regular cleaner and setting up your settings to clean up whatever you can live with as well as setting it to gutman (35 passes). great program... just beware of the registry cleaner included.

used in conjunction with cleanup ccleaner can help to get rid of many things from areas we won't usually want to venture into like temp folders, chache, etc. to keep your pc running clean and quick. also running these 2 prior to scanning can help to rid the pc of little files that may keep something running so it can't be deleted by your malware/virus scans. that's a very useful benefit imo.

imo malwarebytes doesn't catch a whole lot but rids the system of random, seldom rogue malware other programs are useless against. any time i've actually needed it there's been a SERIOUS issue. a very handy tool, imo.

hijack this is la creme de la creme imo, but as mentioned NOT FOR BEGINNERS AT ALL. you can really wipe out a system with it if you don't know what you're doing. not only that but you are at the helm with this program... you decide what's a threat and in need of destruction/annihilation. that makes it very deadly in the hands of a newb/intermediate user.

imo norton is amongst the worst anti-virus programs because of it's name. it is a very handy program with a huge following and that may very well be it's demise ime. it does a great job on your day by day threats but if you get something written by somebody who knows their business or a nasty root kit there's a good chance it'll disable or completely crash/trash norton altogether. among the ranks of mcaffee imo...

i can't provide any opinions or evidence of conflicts between the programs you're using because i have not used that specific configuration. i will say that running several real time scanners does usually end up in a situation where they conflict with each other... or one takes precedence over the other keeping it from doing it's job. i've seen it happen with so many different configurations that i just try to avoid it altogether.

one tiny handy little program i advocate for everybody i know still running windows os's on their systems is spyware blaster. it's a silent program and you'd never know it was doing anything but you'll find a lot less minor threats during scans if you use it. not only that but it's the only program i advocate using in conjunction with another real time scanner. i suggest using the free version for a bit and updating yourself... it's very simple really... then decide if you want it for good... i'd think you would.

 

[Amphiprion]

I only use Firefox, with ABP, NoScript, BetterPrivacy, and WOT (WOT also installed on IE8). I use CCleaner, which I do have automated through the task scheduler (it only runs the file cleanup, not registry for obvious reasons). Never had an issue with it deleting the wrong registry entries, but I always make backups just in case. I have HJT, since luckily that is what saved me during my rootkit infection--incredible program, but I do admit it is all gibberish to me. I don't really ever run it, but I have it if I ever need it again. I did follow a few guides out there to go over it myself once and didn't find anything bad.

Lately, Norton has been on the rise. I see its numbers getting better and better and it is at the top or near it in comparative tests. Other than that, personally, I've always had good luck with it, minus that one rootkit. I don't worry about which AV I have too much, since their standing changes constantly. As long as what I have is reasonably decent, I'm satisfied. I just like to have other things available when my main AV doesn't come through for me. I don't want any of it killing my overall security, though. I will say that even in all the logs, there's no evidence of any issues and everything *seems* fine. I've even fiddled with turning one off, the other on, all off, etc. and I notice zero differences, minus MBAM's IP blacklist blocking feature, which is really cool when using some P2P stuff. I've noticed less Norton intrusion prevention logs since starting it, at least, since it blocks those addresses altogether. If I disable one permanently, it'll probably be superantispyware, in which case I'll just keep it as a scheduled scanner. I'd just like to see if I can get more concrete info on actual drops in security from using these programs together, specifically. SAS' development team swears that it is fully compatible with Norton 2010 and MBAM protection module, at least on the outside.

 

[Amphiprion]

Don't get me wrong. Norton used to be awful. It was so-so in terms of detection, a huge resource hog, and buggy. The 2009+ products have been stellar, however, which is what made me switch back from Kaspersky.