anti-spyware

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pepper
  • Start date Start date
P

Pepper

I have McAfee Internet Security Suite. I know how much most of you detest
it, but I paid for a three-year subscription and I'm keeping it. Is it okay
to leave Window's Defender's real-time protection turned on, or will it
conflict with the McAfee?
 
keep window defender ON.because it has different functionality other that
antivirus, it will not confilict..

"Pepper" wrote:

> I have McAfee Internet Security Suite. I know how much most of you detest
> it, but I paid for a three-year subscription and I'm keeping it. Is it okay
> to leave Window's Defender's real-time protection turned on, or will it
> conflict with the McAfee?
 
"Pepper" <Pepper@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have McAfee Internet Security Suite. I know how much most of you
> detest it, but I paid for a three-year subscription and I'm keeping it.
> Is
> it okay to leave Window's Defender's real-time protection turned on,
> or will it conflict with the McAfee?

While it is recommended to run an additional anti-spyware program (which
Defender is), running both as real-time protection may in rare cases cause
conflicts, the programs try to fight each other etc.

Windows Defender seems to coexist peacefully with most AS programs, so I
think you should give it a go. If problems occur, you can always turn one of
the programs off.

Charlie42
 
It is my understanding that the reason two AVs may conflict
is because of their "on-access" components both hooking
file system calls. The WD application uses agents for "real
time" protection and are mostly looking for certain activity
(behavior) such as registry manipulations and are executing
in the background.

Has anyone reported actual conflicts with WD and any AV?


"Charlie42" <Charlie42@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:uHImNjnwIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Pepper" <Pepper@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>I have McAfee Internet Security Suite. I know how much most of you
>> detest it, but I paid for a three-year subscription and I'm keeping it.
>> Is
>> it okay to leave Window's Defender's real-time protection turned on,
>> or will it conflict with the McAfee?
>
> While it is recommended to run an additional anti-spyware program (which
> Defender is), running both as real-time protection may in rare cases cause
> conflicts, the programs try to fight each other etc.
>
> Windows Defender seems to coexist peacefully with most AS programs, so I
> think you should give it a go. If problems occur, you can always turn one
> of the programs off.
>
> Charlie42
 
"FromTheRafters" <Erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote:

> It is my understanding that the reason two AVs may conflict
> is because of their "on-access" components both hooking
> file system calls. The WD application uses agents for "real
> time" protection and are mostly looking for certain activity
> (behavior) such as registry manipulations and are executing
> in the background.
>
> Has anyone reported actual conflicts with WD and any AV?

Not that I am aware of. The warning on multiple real-time security programs
is a general one, and it is a more of an issue with anti-viruses than
anti-spywares really.

Charlie42
 
"Charlie42" <Charlie42@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:%23bXXhl8wIHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "FromTheRafters" <Erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> It is my understanding that the reason two AVs may conflict
>> is because of their "on-access" components both hooking
>> file system calls. The WD application uses agents for "real
>> time" protection and are mostly looking for certain activity
>> (behavior) such as registry manipulations and are executing
>> in the background.
>>
>> Has anyone reported actual conflicts with WD and any AV?
>
> Not that I am aware of. The warning on multiple real-time security
> programs is a general one, and it is a more of an issue with anti-viruses
> than anti-spywares really.

In the past, with AVs, "real time" and "on access" have been
used almost interchangeably. Now that many other anti-malware
programs have gone "real time" it adds confusion about the
conflict issue.

The only other conflict issue is the fact that some anti-* may
detect others anti-* as actual malware. The anti-malware
suite seems to become the only option to avoid this conflict.
So those that like a "component stereo" approach are losing
out.
 
"FromTheRafters" <Erratic@ne.rr.com> wrote:

> In the past, with AVs, "real time" and "on access" have been
> used almost interchangeably. Now that many other anti-malware
> programs have gone "real time" it adds confusion about the
> conflict issue.

Yep. I was talking about the programs that are sometimes called "memory
resident".

> The only other conflict issue is the fact that some anti-* may
> detect others anti-* as actual malware. The anti-malware
> suite seems to become the only option to avoid this conflict.
> So those that like a "component stereo" approach are losing
> out.

I disagree. Like some of the other posters here, I do not think suites offer
the best protection, but the major issue is their usually excessive
footprints.

Conflicts between anti-spyware programs are rare, conflicts between
anti-spywares and anti-viruses are even rarer (I have yet to see one). My
practical approach with anti-spywares is like I told the OP give it a try,
and turn off/uninstall one program if it should not work out.

Charlie42
 
Back
Top