- Dec 22, 2015
- 148
For what you would decide? Single or dual-engine realtime-antivirus? Are you using Windows Defender because everything else is crap? What is your opinion?
Dual vs. Single-Engine Antivirus?
- Thread starter FrankS
- Start date
Dual engine would provide better detection, although i use a single engine. Antivirus is becoming more and more useless since it can easily be bypassed in my opinion.
Either-or... having 500 AV scan engines is pointless for all of the files that are undetected - and there are many millions of those... LOL.
If you ask me, Windows Defender and MS MRT are sufficient for the AV layer of a security config.
I'm partial to HitmanPro as an on-demand scanner - since it is cloud-based.
If you ask me, Windows Defender and MS MRT are sufficient for the AV layer of a security config.
I'm partial to HitmanPro as an on-demand scanner - since it is cloud-based.
I consider AV just one part of the security setup.
Of course, two engines "can" be better than one, if well-implemented. But it is necessary a diversification of levels : AV, firewall, HIPS, anti-exe, sandbox, anti-exploit.
Anti-virus only, in this context, becomes relative and Windows Defender can be good for my needs.
Of course, two engines "can" be better than one, if well-implemented. But it is necessary a diversification of levels : AV, firewall, HIPS, anti-exe, sandbox, anti-exploit.
Anti-virus only, in this context, becomes relative and Windows Defender can be good for my needs.
- Aug 30, 2015
- 1,928
I don't really understand what the choices mean.. I am currently using Avast, but if I were to switch it would be either SecureAPlus or Win Defender.
- Jun 24, 2016
- 636
I like to run a Single engine AV (Avast)...and a "cloud based" companion (Crystal Security) that checks against VirusTotal..
I personally do not like running a solitary dual-engine AV that keeps signatures updated directly on my system,as I find them heavy..
I personally do not like running a solitary dual-engine AV that keeps signatures updated directly on my system,as I find them heavy..
Go for a single engine based AV with multi layer Protection like Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Norton or Comodo.
- May 14, 2016
- 1,597
I voted Single-Engine based Real-time-Antivirus,
but considering signature based, heuristic, etc, as different methods from one Engine
(and other real-time cloud-based tools)
but considering signature based, heuristic, etc, as different methods from one Engine
(and other real-time cloud-based tools)
Last edited:
- Jul 6, 2015
- 153
In addition to cloud based scanning, a single engine is more than enough.
- Aug 2, 2015
- 4,286
I feel ya Gamez
For me this would depend on the engines in question, some AV / Anti-Malware companies employ crappy dual engines so they would not necessarily be better than a single engine with good qualities.
A good point is EmsiSoft that employs their own engine and Bitdefender and its a solid combo that wins over most other single and multi engine Products.
So its not a question of "how many" but the Quality of what is presant, for me.
PeAcE
For me this would depend on the engines in question, some AV / Anti-Malware companies employ crappy dual engines so they would not necessarily be better than a single engine with good qualities.
A good point is EmsiSoft that employs their own engine and Bitdefender and its a solid combo that wins over most other single and multi engine Products.
So its not a question of "how many" but the Quality of what is presant, for me.
PeAcE
Last edited:
- Jul 28, 2016
- 950
Let me put it this way ; windows defender has come a long way and it's definately upgraded in the win 10 anniversary update. when you practice safe online habbits , do not download and install / use cracks / warez , do not visit dubious sites , like p*rn and other high risk stuff , defender - win firewall , uac set to max is more than sufficient. if you are one a shared computer or you do high risk activities than a " layered " security approach is a better option : av / firewall - anti executable and zemana pro in realtime ( execellent for protection against ransomware ) of course a multi engine security product is better than a single engine , but the increase of fp's will be higher , as is the drag on the system. so you will have to ask yourself the question : do I want a light config , or do I want to sacrifce some pc performance?
- Sep 26, 2014
- 2,973
First of all i am using Windows Defender right now because with my safe browsing habits i don't something else.
About single or dual engine av.
When i want to install an av 2 things i consider most important.
System performance is the first and then false positives.
If an av is heavy on my system single or dual engine after a while is uninstalled.
An example is Emsisoft AntiMalware. Dual engine but lite on my system and with a few false posistives.
Another example Dr.Web. Single engine with few to none False positives but heavy on my system,
so at this time it's not consider an option.
In the end it's not about which is best but what suites you best on your system and what is best for your browsing habits
About single or dual engine av.
When i want to install an av 2 things i consider most important.
System performance is the first and then false positives.
If an av is heavy on my system single or dual engine after a while is uninstalled.
An example is Emsisoft AntiMalware. Dual engine but lite on my system and with a few false posistives.
Another example Dr.Web. Single engine with few to none False positives but heavy on my system,
so at this time it's not consider an option.
In the end it's not about which is best but what suites you best on your system and what is best for your browsing habits
- Jul 28, 2016
- 950
First of all i am using Windows Defender right now because with my safe browsing habits i don't something else.
About single or dual engine av.
When i want to install an av 2 things i consider most important.
System performance is the first and then false positives.
If an av is heavy on my system single or dual engine after a while is uninstalled.
An example is Emsisoft AntiMalware. Dual engine but lite on my system and with a few false posistives.
Another example Dr.Web. Single engine with few to none False positives but heavy on my system,
so at this time it's not consider an option.
In the end it's not about which is best but what suites you best on your system and what is best for your browsing habits
well said tony! I also use a double engine product right now ( kindly provided by my internet provider ) F-Secure I.S. 2016 it uses bitdefender and their own. It is nice and light on overall system performance it only puts a little extra on bootup , but that is no biggie for me
- Aug 2, 2015
- 4,286
- Dec 22, 2015
- 148
Thanks for your replies guys. I used Kaspersky for like 3 years. Now I'm testing a bit and currently I'm using G Data. It's more heavy than Emsisoft, F-Secure and Kaspersky. It runs without any errors/fails and got the best detection ratio/malware removal rate on my own test.
Emsisoft is very fast, light and removed all samples, too. But there are some few things that bother me. 1.) The price 2.) Malware-Host block alert, which is coming like every five minutes on every third page - okay a bit exaggerated. I think I'll wait for Kaspersky 2017 and go back to them.
Emsisoft is very fast, light and removed all samples, too. But there are some few things that bother me. 1.) The price 2.) Malware-Host block alert, which is coming like every five minutes on every third page - okay a bit exaggerated. I think I'll wait for Kaspersky 2017 and go back to them.
Dual-Engine antiviruses are only good when properly implemented. Using 2 engines dedicating to finding viruses overlaps significantly, and will more likely than not just decrease performance while giving you 1% better detection that would've been caught by heuristics or 0-day defenses. This is a big issue I have with dual-engine antiviruses. Marketing speak such as "Powered by Bitdefender and Kaspersky" usually means that only the signatures are used, and none of the proprietary 0-day defenses that are arguably more important.
Single-Engine antiviruses are better simply because these antiviruses actually include a competent HIPS or heuristics module.
An exception to the dual-engine no-no is Emsisoft, which has made a point in separating their engine into 2 parts, a home-grown PUP engine and a licensed engine from Bitdefender. This makes sense because the engines don't do the same thing and are both actively developed, so there's little overlap and both engines are actually effective. They also include a HIPS / behavioral blocker so it's not just some snake-oil "Powered by 60 antivirus engines" antivirus program(Powered by "Free Antivirus Pro 2016" anyone lol?)
Single-Engine antiviruses are better simply because these antiviruses actually include a competent HIPS or heuristics module.
An exception to the dual-engine no-no is Emsisoft, which has made a point in separating their engine into 2 parts, a home-grown PUP engine and a licensed engine from Bitdefender. This makes sense because the engines don't do the same thing and are both actively developed, so there's little overlap and both engines are actually effective. They also include a HIPS / behavioral blocker so it's not just some snake-oil "Powered by 60 antivirus engines" antivirus program
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
- Poll
