|
|
Post by irvsp on Oct 14, 2013 15:39:46 GMT
Most A/V's can work in tandem with others. As I remember, they usually 'hook into' execution paths and some D/L paths. They put a call to them, usually a fixed address on boot to their entry point. MOST, but not all did save the old address in the chain and would call them after they were done. If this is still true, what is the possibility of the 2nd A/V catching anything?
The hooking is what is the problem REMOVING old Security programs. Some do NOT restore the old hooks and you could wind up in big trouble.
MSE has failed many A/V tests in the past. I think the REAL reason is they do not want to be so good that they put a slew of Security companies out of business. Could you say "MONOPOLY" if this happened? One of the reasons the Windows FW is one way, that is an easy one to be good enough but not feature rich to damage other companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by irvsp on Oct 15, 2013 17:04:05 GMT
To me this is the contradiction or misguidance, because it is not a good thing to have more than one AV due to conflicts and hangs etc. But, they may have been referring to a backup or even bootable version, this is the confusion I think as they need to clarify just what they mean by this, is it another AV or did they just mean a malware scanner of some kind? For a AV department to advise the use of two (possibly) real time AVs working on top of each other is a little disastrous in my book. Either way I'm sure they will say something else in a week or two.  Well, THIS appeared today. Sort of a rebuttal I guess? Sort of says MS is making other vendors better, but I'm not sure about that. Note that almost ALL vendor's name threats differently for the same threat. 'Telling' another vendor that is a new threat doesn't mean MS was the first to find it, nor that vendor's don't do the same and share with MS. To me, personally, a SUITE is better than just an A/V. For the 2-way firewall if nothing else. Also the more 'immediate' signature (automated) updates. Using another 'A/V' was not discussed there either, other than this: ============= I continue to recommend MSE as a convenient, low-overhead, low impact anti-virus and anti-spyware tool. It’s easy, it’s reliable, and requires almost no effort to set up or monitor. As others often recommend, MalwareBytes is a fine companion utility to add an extra layer of security should you feel so inclined. (I run with only MSE, and pull out Malwarebytes only as needed, which is quite infrequent.) ============= Is that an admission that MSE isn't able to get all Malware out? I have Norton's ISS and occasionally run MalwareBytes too, but it never finds any malware other than an Adware cookie. If the Norton Scan had run before it, it wouldn't have been there to be found. Running the Norton system scan always finds 50 or more 'cookies' it considers adware or 'not nice', read that as a tracking cookie, that just gets rebuilt the next time I use a browser to visit the site that owns it. I just ran it again, found nothing... |
|
