I’ve received many complaints of the problems experienced by users when they run two similar types of security programs at the same time. In that light, I have a question to everyone who reads this blog and uses security products. Why would somebody be surpised with bugs and software conflicts arising when installing an all-in-one security product on the machine that already has a suite from another vendor in place? Or why would anyone want to install, say, Outpost Security Suite and keep its antimalware plugin enabled while there’s another active antivirus already operating on the PC?
I’m definitely not suggesting that it’s no use installing security suites. Nor am I questioning the reason of equipping one’s PC with a number of “best-of-breed” products of different security categories from several vendors. Full freedom in choosing here. I’m just astonished by the fact that people who install similar solutions (not for the sake of experimenting and finding what’s best, but to supposedly reinforce their overall protection) expect perfect relations between the two partly or fully identical types of security software.
It’s really naïve to express your anger over Outpost Security Suite when it asks for permission to disable a resident and active antivirus monitor by another vendor– what should it do if it knows in advance the conflicts will arise because the task of protection will overlap? We’ve heard criticism from journalists and users who are annoyed by the increased number of product alerts and “slowdowns” while running the suite simultaneously with a third-party antivirus or even a firewall! Security suite is not a music player, not it is a text editor, a game that can coexist happily with thousands of other games on the same hard drive. It’s a product extremely sensitive to operating system and program environment.
When you install and use a security product of choice, you are supposed to trust it, especially if it never let you down. There is no use delegating the same protection function to several different engines of the same type. If you don’t trust your current solution or consider an equal supplement as a backup, you just need to forego the original product. By deploying two antiviruses or firewalls at the same time, you can’t say exactly which one makes decisions and you are sure to have compatibility problems – minor or severe. It’s inevitable. If you have a proactive defense of security application A activated, that of the security application B must be disabled. Crossing those two will not generate good breed.
Because of the above considerations, I can’t come up with a good answer to the problem indicated in the fist paragraph. Can you? Is it ever possible? Although I have no answer, I have a good metaphor to describe the situation. Imagine you hired a bodyguard who is responsible for your safety. However, one day you suddenly realize that one bodyguard is not enough and decide to hire another guy without dismissing the first one. Now imagine the conversation between those two: “I’m gonna protect my boss better, not you. I know what I’m doing!” – “You don’t know a heck, dude. Anyway I gotta go check the territory” – “NO, I’M GOING TO CHECK THE TERRITORY, YOU STUPID!” – “WHAT DID YOU SAY?!” They start fighting. Obviously, they’re not paying attention to you anymore. What happens next? Yes, chances are: you get murdered.
Is there any way to avoid this? Yes, just make up your mind what you really need in terms of security and let your bodyguard do his job without any external interference.
Igor Pankov,
Product Marketing Manager
Agnitum
More news about the long-awaited Outpost Security Suite for Vista and XP! Beta 3 version has been uploaded and is now available for public judgment. During the beta process we’ve heard both criticism and praise related to the previous betas. Many thanks for your opinion, recommendations and discovered bugs!
