Tech Outpost

[twins4384]

Surely it should be the aim of all Security products to make sure they are compatable with others. How many times have we read that no security product can protect 100%. And yet we are told only use the one real time product and use others just to scan. But surely the damage is done before you get the chance to scan after the event so to speak. The best protection is to have more than one real time protection so that what one may miss the other might get. I note that the latest edition of Supoer antiSpyware do say that they are compatable to run with other security software. So what is the answer? I feel that Norton should try to make their security products compatable with others especially trusted programs such as MalwareBytes so that we can have better real time protection.

[dickevans Super RootKit Eradicator]

---

twins4384 wrote:
Surely it should be the aim of all Security products to make sure they are compatable with others. How many times have we read that no security product can protect 100%. And yet we are told only use the one real time product and use others just to scan. But surely the damage is done before you get the chance to scan after the event so to speak. The best protection is to have more than one real time protection so that what one may miss the other might get. I note that the latest edition of Supoer antiSpyware do say that they are compatable to run with other security software. So what is the answer? I feel that Norton should try to make their security products compatable with others especially trusted programs such as MalwareBytes so that we can have better real time protection.

---

Hi,

Not sure I can agree with your argument. If Norton has to dumb down their products to make them compatible, I'm dead set against it! If I get a PUP or other irritating malware I know how to eliminate it using one of the free scanners. If having two active scanners present eliminates this bit of irritation I still can't vote for a dumber Norton.

I'm of the opinion that Norton is the best and that the others might want to make changes if they want to be compatible with Norton. It is also possible that Norton's approach doesn't leave any gaps that the others can use to have active protection running while Norton is present.

Until a better mousetrap comes along I'll go with Norton first/only and one of the other free scanners for second opinions and trash removal should it slip in under the SONAR.

But that's just me

[Krusty13]

I'm with Dick 100%.  Say two people are running to catch a ball,  they could run in to each other and neither catch the ball.  JMO.

Dave.

[SendOfJive Norton Fighter]

---

twins4384 wrote:
The best protection is to have more than one real time protection so that what one may miss the other might get.

---

You'd think so, but no.  The problem lies in the way security software works and what it needs to do.  AV products inspect every file access and so running more than one AV will degrade system performance - in some cases, severely.  Also you are wasting system resources by using twice the resources that you should to accomplish the job of securing your PC.  Then you have the problem of both products fighting each other when a threat is detected.  And, of course, AV programs appear to each other like malware because of their actions on the operating system and this, too, can lead to conflicts.  In short, AV products do not complement each other and this lowers your protection and destabilizes your system. 

It's not just a Norton recommendation - its a fundamental tenet of computer protection that a user should run only one resident security program, regardless of the choice of product.  On a properly secured PC, there is virtually nothing to be gained from running two realtime programs, while the drawbacks of doing so can be significant.