Avast AIS and the New Spybot Beta 2.0.3

[Nesivos]

Yesterday I downloaded and installed the new Spybot Beta 2.0.3

So far it appears to be compatible with Avast AIS.  

Not much of a notable drain on system resources except when using the on-demand scan which can be scheduled to run through the Sypbot GUI using Windows Task Scheduler.

On my Dell Desktop with 4GB DDR3 RAM and a Athlon 240 processor a complete scan took under 18 minutes and it found a butch of items to quarantine that Avast, Malwarebytes, SAS and WD missed.  Avast will not be able to scan the Spybot Quarantine folder so it needs to be excluded from Avast scans.   Avast Memory Scan does not identify Spybot signatures as a virus.

I know there are not many Spybot fans here but I just wanted to give a heads up that the new Beta appears to be compatible with Avast, is much improved in speed and appears to be improved in identifying threats as evidenced by what it found that the others missed.  Yes I know they could be FPs.  The new real time monitor appears not to negatively impact my systems performance.  One final note.  The Beta release does appear to have some bugs so use at your own risk.  However none of those have caused any system problems so far.

Forgot:

The Malware definitions now automatically updated.
Also, the Immunization process now removes old and outdated items from the Protection list keeping the database size down a bit.

[mikaelrask]

spybot can not keep up with the malware so i would suggest you use malwarebytes antimalware and/or superantispyware instead of spybot.

[Asyn]

spybot can not keep up with the malware so i would suggest you use malwarebytes antimalware and/or superantispyware instead of spybot.

+1
Forget SB.

[Gopher John]

spybot can not keep up with the malware so i would suggest you use malwarebytes antimalware and/or superantispyware instead of spybot.

In all honesty, nothing can keep up 100% with malware.  They all miss.

The new SpyBot S&D Beta 2.0.3 by default has 5 processes running resident.  Not all features have yet been implemented, but when they are, I think several will have to be disabled(like I do TeaTimer in the old SpyBot S&D).  Sadly, the new version seems to be headed toward a bloated suite which uses 15-25% of the CPU cycles doing nothing.

[jadinolf]

spybot can not keep up with the malware so i would suggest you use malwarebytes antimalware and/or superantispyware instead of spybot.

+1

[Nesivos]

spybot can not keep up with the malware so i would suggest you use malwarebytes antimalware and/or superantispyware instead of spybot.

Maybe you should read peoples signatures before you comment.  I already use SAS real-time and yes I use Malwarebytes on-demand.  To tell you the truth Malwarebytes has yet to find one piece of Malware on my computer, even though I have run it at least once a week and have for years.

I am not asking for advice on this.

This was an informational post for opened minded users of Avast products.

I know people here hate Spybot and ASC.

Well they work great for me so they must be doing something right.

[Rednose]

Although I am no fan of so called YouTube reviews, I watched Languy 99's video of the new Spybot 2 Beta. But from that video I get the impression it is more an Alpha -  than a Beta release

Greetz, Red.

[Para-Noid]

For what it's worth. I compared CPU usage between SAS and SpyBot S&D (on demand only). They both used the same amount of CPU while scanning. SAS used a lot more with "scan boost" activated. I was comparing the "new" SAS vs. the current SpyBot. Since I have been using avast neither has found any spyware, I didn't expect they would. Like I said...for what it's worth. I realize there are both lovers and haters of SpyBot on this forum. I have this strange feeling there are many who use SpyBot and don't show it in their signatures. I did this only to show CPU usage and not effectiveness. To each his own.

[DBone]

SpyBot still exists?? 

[mikaelrask]

spybot can not keep up with the malware so i would suggest you use malwarebytes antimalware and/or superantispyware instead of spybot.

Maybe you should read peoples signatures before you comment.  I already use SAS real-time and yes I use Malwarebytes on-demand.  To tell you the truth Malwarebytes has yet to find one piece of Malware on my computer, even though I have run it at least once a week and have for years.

I am not asking for advice on this.

This was an informational post for opened minded users of Avast products.

I know people here hate Spybot and ASC.

Well they work great for me so they must be doing something right.

yhea i missed your signuture there but that was not my point with my post. my point was malwarebytes/superantispyware does a better job then spybot when dealling with malware.

[CraigB]

Malwarebytes doesn't find anything because avast is doing it's job, and i would put money on it that anything spybot has detected on your system is definately a false positive.
If you already know that people here dont like spybot and ASC(iobit) products why have you bothered to post?

[SafeSurf]

This was an informational post for opened minded users of Avast products.

He knows who we are.  Thank you Nesivos.

[Gopher John]

For what it's worth. I compared CPU usage between SAS and SpyBot S&D (on demand only). They both used the same amount of CPU while scanning. SAS used a lot more with "scan boost" activated. I was comparing the "new" SAS vs. the current SpyBot. Since I have been using avast neither has found any spyware, I didn't expect they would. Like I said...for what it's worth. I realize there are both lovers and haters of SpyBot on this forum. I have this strange feeling there are many who use SpyBot and don't show it in their signatures. I did this only to show CPU usage and not effectiveness. To each his own.

That is true for SpyBot S&D 1.6.2, which is the way I'm using it.  However, the Beta 2.0.3 when allowed to run as default does have 5 processes which consume a lot of CPU cycles.

FWIW, SpyBot S&D, MalwareBytes, nor SuperAntiSpyware has ever found anything on this machine.  Does that mean that they are ineffective?  No, that means that Avast ( and practicing SafeHex ) has kept malware from infecting it.

[Para-Noid]

For what it's worth. I compared CPU usage between SAS and SpyBot S&D (on demand only). They both used the same amount of CPU while scanning. SAS used a lot more with "scan boost" activated. I was comparing the "new" SAS vs. the current SpyBot. Since I have been using avast neither has found any spyware, I didn't expect they would. Like I said...for what it's worth. I realize there are both lovers and haters of SpyBot on this forum. I have this strange feeling there are many who use SpyBot and don't show it in their signatures. I did this only to show CPU usage and not effectiveness. To each his own.

That is true for SpyBot S&D 1.6.2, which is the way I'm using it.  However, the Beta 2.0.3 when allowed to run as default does have 5 processes which consume a lot of CPU cycles.

FWIW, SpyBot S&D, MalwareBytes, nor SuperAntiSpyware has ever found anything on this machine.  Does that mean that they are ineffective?  No, that means that Avast ( and practicing SafeHex ) has kept malware from infecting it.

Agreed. +1 

[Giraffe]

The Beta also seems to take about 100MB of RAM for its services. I've set all but Update to Manual and will see how things go.