Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 979125" data-attributes="member: 7463">One must consider HOW an AV works before assuming that no combination of AV products should be run concurrently, as some are much more intrusive than others. Some will constantly scan in the background (and multiple of these certainly would not yield optimal results!) whereas others are more of on access detectors, so combinations of these shouldn&#039;t be any problem when run together.Also one should take into account what an AV DOES with a malicious item when detection occurs. For instance WD upon malware detection sequesters the file for a time before actual deletion, while WVSX deletes it immediately (those running WD-WVSX combination may note that if WD detects it first, WV will be blocked out until WD is finished with that file, only deleting it if WD fails to do so).Personally I run with what amounts to triple AV coverage, with WD enabled, WVSX at default, and CF (remember CF has VirusScope and cloud) at preferred settings, and all live very happily together. It&#039;s actually kind of cute to view how they operate together by doing simple tests like unzipping a malware archive to note who detects what and how quickly, and actual on malware run who kills what when. Everyone has to wait if WD detects things first, WV is swift unless AI is needed, CF contains all else (and sometimes even will delete malware via the AV function!), with WV sometimes deleting something especially nasty from within Containment. In short, triple AV redundancy here is not something to be avoided, but something to which one should aspire.Finally, needless to say running an on demand scan with multiple AV&#039;s simultaneously is never a good idea (actually running an on-demand full system scan with proper protection at any time is pretty much pointless). m</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 979125, member: 7463"] One must consider HOW an AV works before assuming that no combination of AV products should be run concurrently, as some are much more intrusive than others. Some will constantly scan in the background (and multiple of these certainly would not yield optimal results!) whereas others are more of on access detectors, so combinations of these shouldn't be any problem when run together. Also one should take into account what an AV DOES with a malicious item when detection occurs. For instance WD upon malware detection sequesters the file for a time before actual deletion, while WVSX deletes it immediately (those running WD-WVSX combination may note that if WD detects it first, WV will be blocked out until WD is finished with that file, only deleting it if WD fails to do so). Personally I run with what amounts to triple AV coverage, with WD enabled, WVSX at default, and CF (remember CF has VirusScope and cloud) at preferred settings, and all live very happily together. It's actually kind of cute to view how they operate together by doing simple tests like unzipping a malware archive to note who detects what and how quickly, and actual on malware run who kills what when. Everyone has to wait if WD detects things first, WV is swift unless AI is needed, CF contains all else (and sometimes even will delete malware via the AV function!), with WV sometimes deleting something especially nasty from within Containment. In short, triple AV redundancy here is not something to be avoided, but something to which one should aspire. Finally, needless to say running an on demand scan with multiple AV's simultaneously is never a good idea (actually running an on-demand full system scan with proper protection at any time is pretty much pointless). m [/QUOTE]

Verification