Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Dieselman on April 16, 2011, 02:55:59 AM
-
http://www.superantispyware.com/superantispyware5.html
-
Thanks Dieselman, Their GUI seems better now.
-
Still a recommended product (except by the tracing cookies...).
Edited.
-
Didn't take them long to reach the daily download limit, bit of a pain when you are an SAS Pro user.
-
I downloaded it early. I gave up on SAS years ago. I only use MBAM and HMP. HMP I use only portable. SAS scans where always too long and it could not find what MBAM found or HMP. Now there is a nice GUI and scan speeds have improved a million times faster the previous version. Just remember to disable the "start with Windows" and "show icon in system tray". Also for 64 bit users set the sascore service to demand start. Other then that its a great free on demand scanner. Hopefully the detection rate will increase.
-
Didn't take them long to reach the daily download limit, bit of a pain when you are an SAS Pro user.
Not following you... What do you mean with "daily download limit"?
Still can't understand why an on demand scanning should launch drivers and services... :P
-
1. Since this is a limited download, there is actually a download limit, I checked on their forums when I couldn't download it.
I have however just been back and the download link is active, so I have downloaded it.
2. Whilst I have the Pro version which as a resident will have the SAS service running. For the free on-demand version, when you set it up if you elect to have SAS in the explorer menu then it presumably has the service running to be able to run the scan.
-
The service is not really needed. I hate adding extra crap to my pc so I set it to on demand.
-
I downloaded it early. I gave up on SAS years ago. I only use MBAM and HMP. HMP I use only portable. SAS scans where always too long and it could not find what MBAM found or HMP. Now there is a nice GUI and scan speeds have improved a million times faster the previous version. Just remember to disable the "start with Windows" and "show icon in system tray". Also for 64 bit users set the sascore service to demand start. Other then that its a great free on demand scanner. Hopefully the detection rate will increase.
I'm a little confused as to why you would make a separate post for a program that you apparently don't think much of.
If I don't like a program, I don't try to pass it on to others.
-
LOL Bob..................Obviously you did not take the time to read what I wrote. I clearly stated I gave up on SAS years ago but now I am trying version 5.0. Does it matter if I gave up on it completely? I am posting info to the members of this forum thank you very much.
Quick scan times:
MBAM = 2:24
SAS = 2:14
-
Well there doesn't seem to be a direct comparison on what is being scanned, for the two Quick scans. MBAM talks of objects and SAS gives a breakdown of what is scanned, so I don't know how an object is measured. Plus there are differences in the scan settings for both programs.
For me in the past MBAM was always quicker than SAS by some margin (couple of minutes) but now they are closer with SAS slightly quicker, but not something that you can directly compare.
MBAM
Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 152118
Time elapsed: 2 minute(s), 59 second(s)
SAS
Scan type : Quick Scan
Total Scan Time : 00:02:24
Memory items scanned : 641
Memory threats detected : 0
Registry items scanned : 31519
Registry threats detected : 0
File items scanned : 6175
File threats detected : 0
-
MBAM scanned 184964 objects
SAS scanned
Memory items scanned : 496
Memory threats detected : 0
Registry items scanned : 62083
Registry threats detected : 0
File items scanned : 10515
File threats detected : 0
-
As you can see it isn't something that can easily be compared, I just checked the SAS Critical Point scan almost the same (half the files) to the quick scan but only 56 seconds.
Memory items scanned : 643
Memory threats detected : 0
Registry items scanned : 31519
Registry threats detected : 0
File items scanned : 3601
File threats detected : 0
-
Wasnt getting that technical. LOL. I was merely comparing quick scans. SAS 4 use to take about 10 minutes for a quick scan. Now version 5 is less then 3 minutes.
-
Thanks for the link D-Man.
-
Your welcome Marc. I have 4 house calls to make tomorrow. I am going to test SAS 5 out while I am on them. What better way to test something but in the real world of malware infected pc's.
-
Let us know how your tests turn out.
-
Super anti spyware' has been a great program and i think in 5.0 it will be better then ever :P
-
Super anti spyware' has been a great program and i think in 5.0 it will be better then ever :P
All one word my friend. LOL.
-
Wasnt getting that technical. LOL. I was merely comparing quick scans. SAS 4 use to take about 10 minutes for a quick scan. Now version 5 is less then 3 minutes.
For some reason it takes 30 - 40 minutes to finish a quick scan on my computer where as MBAM takes about 7minutes.. (This is version 4.5 I'm talking about)..
After looking at this post I'm starting to get a bit worried that somethings wrong with my pc, since the specs are pretty good..
-
Nice way of scanning :)
Application Version : 5.0.1076
Core Rules Database Version : 6854
Trace Rules Database Version: 4666
Scan type : Complete Scan
Total Scan Time : 00:06:27
Memory items scanned : 709
Memory threats detected : 0
Registry items scanned : 36338
Registry threats detected : 0
File items scanned : 19536
File threats detected : 0
-
new SAS 5 GUI is absolutely ugly, doesn't change much it always was ... MBAM is too lol... yeah I know it doesn't matter ;)
-
It seems that the only thing SAS is better at than MBAM is finding cookies.
If you happen to not like cookies, then pick the cookie monster otherwise,
MBAM still does a better job of finding the stuff that's actually harming your system. IMHO.
-
Can someone tell if I should be worried about my hard drive, as it takes too long to finish a quick scan with SAS... 30-40mints where as others say that its done in less than 10minutes , most in less than 5.. :-\ I have about 200gb used on my hard drive..
-
Can someone tell if I should be worried about my hard drive, as it takes too long to finish a quick scan with SAS... 30-40mints where as others say that its done in less than 10minutes , most in less than 5.. :-\ I have about 200gb used on my hard drive..
sounds like you're doing a full scan, and we're doing a fast scan ;D
-
sounds like you're doing a full scan, and we're doing a fast scan ;D
Nope I'm doing a quick scan.. a full scan takes about 1hr 30mints .. :-\
-
Can someone tell if I should be worried about my hard drive, as it takes too long to finish a quick scan with SAS... 30-40mints where as others say that its done in less than 10minutes , most in less than 5.. :-\ I have about 200gb used on my hard drive..
Which version of SAS are you talking about? 4.50.1002 or PR 5.0.1076?
-
sounds like you're doing a full scan, and we're doing a fast scan ;D
Nope I'm doing a quick scan.. a full scan takes about 1hr 30mints .. :-\
you're using the old 4.* version or the new 5.0pre ?
ps: quick scans take forever on 4.*
-
Older version.. 4.5 I think.. ( the latest stable one)
-
sounds like you're doing a full scan, and we're doing a fast scan ;D
Nope I'm doing a quick scan.. a full scan takes about 1hr 30mints .. :-\
Are you using Ccleaner or another similar product to clean up the garbage before doing your scans ???
-
Yes I'm using cc cleaner.. But MBAM quick scan only takes about 10minutes, but the full scan takes more than an hour.. Still SAS quick scan shouldnt take thing long right?
-
Older version.. 4.5 I think.. ( the latest stable one)
okay, that's what I thought... you're aware that you're posting in a thread about the 5.0 new version right ;D
>>> again, quick scans take forever on 4.*
-
Imo, that's average scan speed for the stable one. :)
-
Older version.. 4.5 I think.. ( the latest stable one)
okay, that's what I thought... you're aware that you're posting in a thread about the 5.0 new version right ;D
>>> again, quick scans last forever on 4.*
Yes I'm aware.. but check reply #19.. Dieselman said that it takes about 10minutes.. and other people also compared the scan speeds in the 2 versions but mine is way too high right?
-
Imo, that's average scan speed for the stable one. :)
Thank God! ;D
-
Imo, that's average scan speed for the stable one. :)
Thank God! ;D
Yep!
my quick scan takes about 30 minutes to complete with version 4.5.
but with version 5, it only takes about 4 minutes. ;D
-
my quick scan takes about 30 minutes to complete with version 4.5.
but with version 5, it only takes about 4 minutes. ;D
:o :o :o WOW! Cant wait for the stable release!!!
-
It seems that the only thing SAS is better at than MBAM is finding cookies.
If you happen to not like cookies, then pick the cookie monster otherwise,
MBAM still does a better job of finding the stuff that's actually harming your system. IMHO.
Totally agree.. Sadly I bought SAS long ago.. If I had known much about it wouldnt have bought.. the free version is more than enough and it only detect cookies.. So many new spyware werent detected by it but MBAM detected pretty quickly :)
-
I hope they increased the speed.....
-
Older version.. 4.5 I think.. ( the latest stable one)
This post is about SAS 5 so telling us your scan times with SAS 4 is meaningless buddy. SAS 4 always took a long time to run quick scans. Thats another reason I stopped using it on house calls. Cant wait around for 20 minutes while it scans. Waiting for the portable version to add to my trusty toolkit.
-
@Dieselman, I'm going to tell you the same thing I told logos ;D
I posted here after seeing your post about comparing the scan speeds, you said it took 10minutes on V 4.5 and that it took less than 5mins on the newer one, and mine took 30-40mins so I got a bit worried..
Then Yodaosan told that its pretty normal so all's well now ;D
-
LOL. Ok Drak my buddy. Scan speeds are greatly improved with SAS 5 so hopefully so is its detection rate. But I think its using the same definitions. I will see later. I have some rogues to remove. Run rkill then I will scan with SAS. Most of the time I just use my bootable cd cause its easier but I will give this a test.
-
For some reason it takes 30 - 40 minutes to finish a quick scan on my computer where as MBAM takes about 7minutes.. (This is version 4.5 I'm talking about)..
I don't use SAS but MBAM only takes a short time to do a Quick scan on my Windows 7 systemScan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 167984
Time elapsed: 1 minute(s), 58 second(s)
-
So I just came back from making 3 house calls. Two of them were rogue infections and the other was a rootkit. The first rogue was terminated with rkill then I installed SAS and ran a scan. It found the rogue and removed it. Rebooted and scanned again with SAS and it was clean. I then ran a scan with MBAM and it found a registry key change. So SAS did pretty good. The next rogue was rather nasty. The fake MSE one. The pc was unbootable into Windows so I had to use my Kaspersky Rescue CD. After scanning with Kaspersky I was able to boot into Windows. I scanned with MBAM and it found nothing. I then scanned with SAS and it found a hidden Trojan. So the score is tied. Why not use both. One may find what the other does not. The next house call both SAS and MBAM found zero malware. When I opened Process Hacker I saw iexplorer.exe running when IE was not open. So I knew I had a rootkit calling home. So I scanned with TDDSKIller and removed it. Still found iexplorer.exe calling home by itself. Scanned with MBAM and SAS again and nothing found. So I scanned with HMP and it found the rootkit and successfully removed it.
-
Thanks for the feedback - the bottom line is just as stated above - you need more than one solution - SUPERAntiSpyware will often find things MBAM (or others miss) just as MBAM (or others) will find things SUPERAntiSpyware misses - we receive over 30,000 samples per day - no one can catch everything and no one ever will.
So for those that say "MBAM is bad" or "SAS is bad" (because one found something the other didn't) should realize you need more than one product at all times - SUPERAntiSpyware + MBAM is a great combination and used by professionals worldwide.
-
Thanks for the feedback - the bottom line is just as stated above - you need more than one solution - SUPERAntiSpyware will often find things MBAM (or others miss) just as MBAM (or others) will find things SUPERAntiSpyware misses - we receive over 30,000 samples per day - no one can catch everything and no one ever will.
So for those that say "MBAM is bad" or "SAS is bad" (because one found something the other didn't) should realize you need more than one product at all times - SUPERAntiSpyware + MBAM is a great combination and used by professionals worldwide.
Well said..................Both are free so why not use both. Just like Norton may find something that Avast misses. Or Avast finds something that Norton misses. Same concept. Hey Super..................Will there be a portable version so I can add it to my toolkit?
-
Just like Norton may find something that Avast misses. Or Avast finds something that Norton misses. Same concept.
Using 2 separate Malware apps, is OK. I certainly wouldn't recommend using two resident antivirus programs. :)
-
Just like Norton may find something that Avast misses. Or Avast finds something that Norton misses. Same concept.
Using 2 separate Malware apps, is OK. I certainly wouldn't recommend using two resident antivirus programs. :)
Never said that bob now did I? You are older so you cannot tell me that you have not seen someone come in here and say "Avast sucks. I got a virus and Avast could not remove it. So I uninstalled Avast and installed Norton. Now I am virus free". Same goes over at the Symantec forums. No where did I say running 2 anti viruses together.
-
My statement was that I would not recommend running 2 separate resident AV's
I didn't say you recommended it.
We all also know that there is no such thing as a perfect AV since all of them
react to something has already occurred.
Someone is always the poor person to run into a new infection for which there isn't yet
any cure.
-
Just like Norton may find something that Avast misses. Or Avast finds something that Norton misses. Same concept.
Using 2 separate Malware apps, is OK. I certainly wouldn't recommend using two resident antivirus programs. :)
Never said that bob now did I? You are older so you cannot tell me that you have not seen someone come in here and say "Avast sucks. I got a virus and Avast could not remove it. So I uninstalled Avast and installed Norton. Now I am virus free". Same goes over at the Symantec forums. No where did I say running 2 anti viruses together.
I Think this is the portable version that there is right now. http://www.superantispyware.com/portablescanner.html
-
That is NOT portable version 5. I am already aware of that version thank you very much.
-
That is NOT portable version 5. I am already aware of that version thank you very much.
Exactly. Drivers and services are there... Shame...
-
Hey SuperAntiSpy..............I know you are a SAS developer and I see you over at Wilders but why is SAS Core necessary to run on a 64 bit OS? I hate adding processes and services to my system. The first thing I did was set it to manual. Both MBAM and HMP do not need a service so why SAS?
-
Hey SuperAntiSpy..............I know you are a SAS developer and I see you over at Wilders but why is SAS Core necessary to run on a 64 bit OS? I hate adding processes and services to my system. The first thing I did was set it to manual. Both MBAM and HMP do not need a service so why SAS?
HMP and MBAM won't be able to completely access the system from a limited user account, especially in 64-bit Windows 7 - modifying tokens, etc. really doesn't fly in Windows 7 64-bit, so without a service you can't properly perform those actions - what does that mean? That means there will be situations where products won't be able to access system items and detect and remove them....
-
Well I never remove malware under an LUA so still why is the service needed? HMP has a force breach mode. Hold down control while opening up HMP and it will kill malicious processes.
-
Well I never remove malware under an LUA so still why is the service needed? HMP has a force breach mode. Hold down control while opening up HMP and it will kill malicious processes.
We also do other items under the service that are proprietary - but it helps with removal when the system start.
-
So what your saying in a nut shell is that SAS needs this service to effectively remove malware on an infected system? Correct. :)
Well running a service on a non infected system is not necessary. I can kill any malicious process with SASCore.exe.
-
So what your saying in a nut shell is that SAS needs this service to effectively remove malware on an infected system? Correct. :)
Well running a service on a non infected system is not necessary. I can kill any malicious process with SASCore.exe.
What I am saying is the SUPERAntiSpyware is MOST effective with the service running. I am not sure why people feel the need to disable parts of a product - the SASCORE.EXE users no CPU and little memory - why not just leave it running?
-
Why not leave it out. Most advanced pc users such as myself DO NOT want unneeded or unnecessary services or processes running. I am not creating an argument but this is just how I feel. If HMP and MBAM can be effective at removing malware without the need to run a service then SAS should be able to do the same.
BTW...........Will there be a portable version 5 coming out?
-
Why not leave it out. Most advanced pc users such as myself DO NOT want unneeded or unnecessary services or processes running. I am not creating an argument but this is just how I feel. If HMP and MBAM can be effective at removing malware without the need to run a service then SAS should be able to do the same.
BTW...........Will there be a portable version 5 coming out?
What you are not understanding is that MBAM and HMP (unless they are run as ADMINISTATOR) cannot be as effective because they can't access parts of the system and processes - the same with products not being native 64-bit.
Fortunately 99.999999999% of our users don't tinker with things and SUPERAntiSpyware will perform to it's best on their systems! :)
-
The average pc user is not using an LUA account.
-
The average pc user is not using an LUA account.
The average user is not running as administrator and does have UAC on - both of which can block access unless you allow access. Believe it or not, after 27 years of developing software professionally and over 10 years in the security game we do actually understand what we are doing and our customers :)
-
I agree with Dieselman here.
1. No unnecessary services and drivers.
2. Average users run the system with UAC on (default) and as an administrator.
3. I can't understand why an user with low privileges want to clean/scan a system...
-
I agree with Dieselman here.
1. No unnecessary services and drivers.
2. Average users run the system with UAC on (default) and as an administrator.
3. I can't understand why an user with low privileges want to clean/scan a system...
There are users with lower level privileges (we see this ALL the time in dealing with real customers) - while you can say "why would they want to clean" - we can't, we have to clean the system and protect our users.
There are no "unnecessary services or drives" - we have our required drivers and services to clean infected systems to the best of our abilities - I am explaining this to everypone here as a DEVELOPER of LOW LEVEL software, but it seems that you think it "shouldn't be required" - I guess I can't convince you, but luckily I can protect our user base and clean their systems! :)
So, does that mean that applications such as MBAM and others that don't have native 64-bit applications work just as well as a native 64-bit application and can access everything as well? :)
-
Any good company listens to the public. Make the product around what people want and not what you want. I go to people's houses everyday. And guess what. 95% are logged in Admin. Why? Cause that is how a computer comes when you first set it up. Most people even share the same login cause they don't even know how to make an additional account. Start going to people's houses and see how many owners are logged in as a standard user. Do that and get back to me. Thanks.
SAS has slipt away due to a very low detection rate. MBAM is the top choice over at Bleeping Computers. Also SAS has a high failure rate in MRG's. Does any of this mean that SAS is no good? No. But if MBAM and HMP do not need to run a service to be effective then neither does SAS. As in matter of fact HMP doesnt even need to be installed.
-
Well SuperAntiSpyware is essentially no different to Avast Software, in that they have to make decisions on default settings, etc. to best protect the majority of users.
No point in coming back to say they are different, avast free/pro/ais is resident, SAS Pro resident and SAS free non-resident. It is about the decision on how to best protect the majority of their users, free or pro.
-
Any good company listens to the public. Make the product around what people want and not what you want. I go to people's houses everyday. And guess what. 95% are logged in Admin. Why? Cause that is how a computer comes when you first set it up. Most people even share the same login cause they don't even know how to make an additional account. Start going to people's houses and see how many owners are logged in as a standard user. Do that and get back to me. Thanks.
We diagnose 100's of computers daily with our diagnostic (remote), we also receive over 10,000 diagnostics from USERS computers DAILY - so we do see what people are running, how they are logged in, and what working and what is not.
As for listening to our users - yes, we have done that, that's why we have developed version 5.0 - we added dozens of user requested features and enhancements - that's what we do - we create products for our users.
We have a Windows Service that is part of our software, I am not sure why that's such a big deal to you - 1000's of software products have services - it's a way to do things "the Microsoft approved way" as far as system access. The service uses virtually no memory and no CPU except when scanning - it seems as if you are harping on something for no reason - if you don't want the service, disable it - no big deal but don't try and put down our product because we use a service.
-
On demand means on demand. Resident means resident. There is absolutely no reason that SAScore.exe needs to be running. If I am using the Pro version then yes.
-
Doesn't matter what it means, it is how they go about achieving that, having the service running so the scan can be run quicker or more effectively is one way and the route that they have chosen to go down.
Personally I don't have a problem with that, for those like yourself can easily disable the service. But that isn't something that your average user is going to be doing or I suspect even concerned about it.
-
On demand means on demand. Resident means resident. There is absolutely no reason that SAScore.exe needs to be running. If I am using the Pro version then yes.
I guess we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that - it's running for specific reasons, it uses little memory and no cpu when idle and it will pose no problems to any of our 40 million downloaders, so we'll just leave it at that - you can set yours to manual or stopped :)
-
Seems that you come here on avast forums to sell your own solutions for all computers.
Besides, you do not tolerate criticism and others' opinions that differ from yours.
Not a good way to sell your own developer image. Sorry.
-
We have a Windows Service that is part of our software, I am not sure why that's such a big deal to you - 1000's of software products have services - it's a way to do things "the Microsoft approved way" as far as system access. The service uses virtually no memory and no CPU except when scanning - it seems as if you are harping on something for no reason - if you don't want the service, disable it - no big deal but don't try and put down our product because we use a service.
Just don't call your product on demand.
There is "virtually no memory"... it's always there.
Also, there are boot time loading the drivers...
You can also develop a setup that asks the user the service installing then. What do you think?
-
Thank you Tech. I find it odd that SAS is not open for opinions nor do they take constructive criticism well. I am not being a jerk but saying that the average user us logged in under an LUA us false. Maybe business peope but the average home user is logged in as Admin. How many times do I have to say this. If MBAM and HMP can do it then so can SAS. Just cause SAS runs a service does not mean anything. Heck people get infected with Avaat running.
-
In my experience, the quick scan speeds for SAS and MBAM have always been about the same with neither one ever taking more than 4.5 minutes. I really don't care whether they use a service or not as long as it doesn't impact the system when not in use.
I also agree that very few home users log in as anything but administrator. For most people, having to change logins to install or update things would be too much of a hassle. It would be for me.
-
Just to make me clear.
I do recommend the use of SAS. I think it's a good product. It's present in my "generic cleaning procedures".
Besides the service and the drivers, I also do not like the way cookies are managed and how SAS alarm the users about them. Seems non necessary.
-
Cookie alarming is used by many companies as a scare tactic. When a product finds cookies and labels them suspicious it makes the average user think the product is actually working. But the average user does no know that cookies are harmless. Norton sets off cookie alarms also. Then the user goes "Wow I'm sure glad I bought Norton. It removed those malicious cookies. "
-
Cookie alarming is used by many companies as a scare tactic. When a product finds cookies and labels them suspicious it makes the average user think the product is actually working. But the average user does no know that cookies are harmless. Norton sets off cookie alarms also. Then the user goes "Wow I'm sure glad I bought Norton. It removed those malicious cookies. "
That's specifically why we moved cookies into a "non-threat" tracking category - this way users don't think they are "threats", but simply items to track data - which is exactly what cookies do!
-
Seems that you come here on avast forums to sell your own solutions for all computers.
Besides, you do not tolerate criticism and others' opinions that differ from yours.
Not a good way to sell your own developer image. Sorry.
I didn't start this thread - when I see items or concerns raised about our product, I certainly come to address them - I am actually not trying to sell anything, and I am open to suggestions, concerns, etc. - I do have the right to explain why we did things the way we did - just because one tech writes "a service is bad" doesn't mean that's the facts - and I want to ensure users have both sides of the story so they can make their own decision.
-
Thanks SUPERAntiSpy.
-
How good is SAS? ;D like is it good at cleaning a PC from viruses?
-
I downloaded and installed the new V5 of SAS. I like the new GUI a lot more than the old one. I did a quick scan with it and another with MBAM. The speeds were pretty much the same as always with SAS taking 3:40 and MBAM 2:37. MBAM found nothing but SAS "detected" 2 threats in a Need For Speed game that I know is malware free so they were submitted as FP's.
-
I also do not like the way cookies are managed and how SAS alarm the users about them. Seems non necessary.
Tech,
It's hard to please everyone, there are a lot of things that can be checked and unchecked in SAS's ui to please as many as possible. ;)
Cookies can be unchecked. :)
-
My personal opinion about this matter is, nowadays most of the people are using reasonably good computers - specification-wise so a small process that uses a little RAM with a small processor usage wouldnt do any harm..
Advanced users can disable it.. and users who dont know much about computers wouldnt mind at all since they wont feel a difference..
But having said that, SAS didnt detect any of the malware that MBAM detected on my pc.. No point in it being so effective at removing, if it wont detect.. I agree that any program may have leaks.. Avast had leaks MBAM caught.. and I know that no protection SW detects 100% of the viruses out there.. Sadly SAS didnt detect and of the 10 infections that MBAM caught on my pc.. (Avast detected 2 of them)
On my pc it only detected tracking cookies, and about this also I agree with SuperAntispy - the option to disable detecting tracking cookies is there, but I prefer to remove them.. Again, this is my personal preference..
Also @SuperAntiSpy, for some reason my "quick scan" takes 30-45 minutes to complete.. Any idea why? (a few other users have the same problem, if you go through this topic you will see :) )FYI I'm using version 4.5 (I know that this topic is about V5 but most of the users have compared the speeds of the 2 versions and most of them say its completed in 10 minutes while few have the same problem as me - it takes a really long time for a quick scan..
Cheers!
-
My personal opinion about this matter is, nowadays most of the people are using reasonably good computers - specification-wise so a small process that uses a little RAM with a small processor usage wouldnt do any harm..
Advanced users can disable it.. and users who dont know much about computers wouldnt mind at all since they wont feel a difference..
But having said that, SAS didnt detect any of the malware that MBAM detected on my pc.. No point in it being so effective at removing, if it wont detect.. I agree that any program may have leaks.. Avast had leaks MBAM caught.. and I know that no protection SW detects 100% of the viruses out there.. Sadly SAS didnt detect and of the 10 infections that MBAM caught on my pc.. (Avast detected 2 of them)
On my pc it only detected tracking cookies, and about this also I agree with SuperAntispy - the option to disable detecting tracking cookies is there, but I prefer to remove them.. Again, this is my personal preference..
Also @SuperAntiSpy, for some reason my "quick scan" takes 30-45 minutes to complete.. Any idea why? (a few other users have the same problem, if you go through this topic you will see :) )FYI I'm using version 4.5 (I know that this topic is about V5 but most of the users have compared the speeds of the 2 versions and most of them say its completed in 10 minutes while few have the same problem as me - it takes a really long time for a quick scan..
Cheers!
Please post the scan log from MBAM and SAS so I can see what was detected, and what version of our definitions were in use, etc and we'll make sure things get handled. That's part of the "game" of malware, nothing can get everything on a given day, but we are here to help!
-
Please post the scan log from MBAM and SAS so I can see what was detected, and what version of our definitions were in use, etc and we'll make sure things get handled. That's part of the "game" of malware, nothing can get everything on a given day, but we are here to help!
I'm afraid I dont have the scan logs.. I will try to find them but cant be sure.. I clear the logs frequently.. But in all fairness to SAS, 3 of the infected files were new detections on MBAM, and most of the security suites havent added detection for them, another file got detected by Avast after we submitted it to the labs..
I generally clear the quarantine as well as logs, but for the 3 files mentioned above - since they were new detections I have kept samples - can send them if you want. I actually started a thread about them, to make others aware and to inform Avast developers - with the help of Pondus - a senior poster :)
I'll copy the link to the posts in that thread, please note that MBAM had a small bug and it was fixed after updating it (this will explain my first few posts in the thread)
post1 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75644.msg626462#msg626462)
post2 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75644.msg626595#msg626595)
post3 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75644.msg626327#msg626327)
And yeah I know that no security product is perfect and totally agree with you on that point.. Anyway what I actually meant in my earlier post was that Any product has 'leaks' but SAS just happened to miss all the infections that were detected on my computer(which was about 10 including registry keys) also some memory modules got detected(about another 10).. Anyway cant count on just 1 product which is why I'm using Avast SAS + MBAM - all pro versions, but not running SAS on real-time..
Anyway What about the quick scan time? Havent there been any other issues that users reported about it ? about the quick scan taking so long? My version is the current stable release (4.5.xxx)
Also any news about the final release of V5? (is it too early to mention a date?)
-
Just remember to disable the "start with Windows" and "show icon in system tray". Also for 64 bit users set the sascore service to demand start.
Thanks for the info. What is and where can I find this SASCORE SERVICE that you mentioned?
-
Just remember to disable the "start with Windows" and "show icon in system tray". Also for 64 bit users set the sascore service to demand start.
Thanks for the info. What is and where can I find this SASCORE SERVICE that you mentioned?
You should NOT set the service to "demand start" or it will never be running. This is disabling key features of the scanner.
-
The service doesnt need to be running to update,run or on demand scan. If the service is required then bye bye SAS.
-
The service doesnt need to be running to update,run or on demand scan. If the service is required then bye bye SAS.
There is really no reason the service can't be there. It helps SUPERAntiSpyware more effectively remove malware when the system starts up (yes even for the Free On-Demand version ) - and it imposes no negative impact on a system - Disable the service on your system, you run as administrator without UAC so you won't be hindered, but encouraging others to do it is potentially keeping them infected.
I assume you are going to stop using Windows, it requires services as well! :) (kidding)
The service also helps with real-time protection, and since so many users purchase the Professional Edition, having them disable it will prevent the real-time from working as effectively when they upgrade - so I would ask that you don't have others disable it.
-
Please post the scan log from MBAM and SAS so I can see what was detected, and what version of our definitions were in use, etc and we'll make sure things get handled. That's part of the "game" of malware, nothing can get everything on a given day, but we are here to help!
I'm afraid I dont have the scan logs.. I will try to find them but cant be sure.. I clear the logs frequently.. But in all fairness to SAS, 3 of the infected files were new detections on MBAM, and most of the security suites havent added detection for them, another file got detected by Avast after we submitted it to the labs..
I generally clear the quarantine as well as logs, but for the 3 files mentioned above - since they were new detections I have kept samples - can send them if you want. I actually started a thread about them, to make others aware and to inform Avast developers - with the help of Pondus - a senior poster :)
I'll copy the link to the posts in that thread, please note that MBAM had a small bug and it was fixed after updating it (this will explain my first few posts in the thread)
post1 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75644.msg626462#msg626462)
post2 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75644.msg626595#msg626595)
post3 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75644.msg626327#msg626327)
And yeah I know that no security product is perfect and totally agree with you on that point.. Anyway what I actually meant in my earlier post was that Any product has 'leaks' but SAS just happened to miss all the infections that were detected on my computer(which was about 10 including registry keys) also some memory modules got detected(about another 10).. Anyway cant count on just 1 product which is why I'm using Avast SAS + MBAM - all pro versions, but not running SAS on real-time..
Anyway What about the quick scan time? Havent there been any other issues that users reported about it ? about the quick scan taking so long? My version is the current stable release (4.5.xxx)
Also any news about the final release of V5? (is it too early to mention a date?)
Ah, I assumed you were running the 5.0 pre-release! The 4.x series will scan much slower and the detection is much better. I thought you had an infection right now that was not being detected by the 5.0 pre-release. I'll take a look at your posts, thank you for the link!
-
no worries!
Hope the final version will be out soon - V5 ;D
-
Hmm Maybe i will download SAS when Version 5 comes out.. is it possible to hide the icon in the taskbar that is that little picture of A bug? xD
-
Hmm Maybe i will download SAS when Version 5 comes out.. is it possible to hide the icon in the taskbar that is that little picture of A bug? xD
Yes, goto preferences, untick 'show SAS icon in sys tray'
-
Hmm Maybe i will download SAS when Version 5 comes out.. is it possible to hide the icon in the taskbar that is that little picture of A bug? xD
Or you can also hide it in the windows Start, Properties, Taskbar, Customize, to hide the icon, that way it is available should you need to access it.
-
Hmm Maybe i will download SAS when Version 5 comes out.. is it possible to hide the icon in the taskbar that is that little picture of A bug? xD
Or you can also hide it in the windows Start, Properties, Taskbar, Customize, to hide the icon, that way it is available should you need to access it.
Or you can just drag 'n drop to the hidden area ;D
-
<snip>
Or you can just drag 'n drop to the hidden area ;D
Thanks, not to familiar with win7, I don't use it that much on my netbook.
-
oh ok :) Win7 task bar + sys tray is fully customizable :D so many new features + tricks ;D
-
New Pre-Release build of SAS is now available! (v5.0.1078)
-
I did notice a bug. I have the option to show the right click scan in explorer context menus selected and it's not there. Only the ones for Avast! and MBAM are showing.
-
Yes, testing the new build....To be honest, I have never seen a malware in my system for 2 years atleast....other than cookies detected by SAS
-
Yes, testing the new build....To be honest, I have never seen a malware in my system for 2 years atleast....other than cookies detected by SAS
Same here I have used it for about 1.5 years and only cookies were detected. But when I installed malwarebytes it found spyware that sas missed. Hopefully the company has made some huge changes in the engine with v5.
-
To be honest, I have never seen a malware in my system for 2 years atleast.
So, enjoy life and a beer :)
I give up on updating and monitoring such a lot of on demand scanning products... For what? Just a lose of time and playing games with the computer as a toy :)
-
Yes, testing the new build....To be honest, I have never seen a malware in my system for 2 years atleast....other than cookies detected by SAS
Same here I have used it for about 1.5 years and only cookies were detected. But when I installed malwarebytes it found spyware that sas missed. Hopefully the company has made some huge changes in the engine with v5.
You will see the same thing with all products, no single product can catch everything on a given day. Running SUPERAntiSpyware+MBAM+AntiVirus+Firewall will provide you the best layered protection. We catch things daily that MBAM misses just as they catch things that SUPERAntiSpyware misses - it's just the reality.
-
I did notice a bug. I have the option to show the right click scan in explorer context menus selected and it's not there. Only the ones for Avast! and MBAM are showing.
First the latest version is now 5.0.1078 and the right click context menu entry is there on my XP Pro system. Have you rebooted since installing/updating (?), I found today when I updated to the latest 5.0.1078 build that afterwards it was still showing the old build in the tooltip. Restarting SAS then showed the correct build.
-
I did notice a bug. I have the option to show the right click scan in explorer context menus selected and it's not there. Only the ones for Avast! and MBAM are showing.
First the latest version is now 5.0.1078 and the right click context menu entry is there on my XP Pro system. Have you rebooted since installing/updating (?), I found today when I updated to the latest 5.0.1078 build that afterwards it was still showing the old build in the tooltip. Restarting SAS then showed the correct build.
We'll check that out, thanks for letting us know!
-
Can you explain this SuperAntispy? What is your input on 1/20? Sorry for the video guys but I am asking SuperAntiSspy a legit question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3F-ydxbB8&feature=player_embedded
-
Can you explain this SuperAntispy? What is your input on 1/20? Sorry for the video guys but I am asking SuperAntiSspy a legit question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3F-ydxbB8&feature=player_embedded
This is typical of "scan the folder" tests - we are really geared to detect samples on live systems, not in a desktop folder. MBAM and Hitman also get provided those samples, where we don't - we are working with MRG (done), VT (done), MalwareTips and many others to be on their distribution lists - I know for a fact that they are provided to those other companies directly - it's just a matter of us getting on their distribution lists - which we are working on. For instance I can post a video of scanning our samples that we process and we'll detect >90% of them and MBAM and Hitman, etc. won't detect nearly as many - why? - because they don't yet have some of those samples. It's just the reality in the malware game - we receive over 50k samples each and every day - we get many others don't get and they get many we don't get.
-
Chris and Sveta from MRG are friends of mine. SAS has done very poorly on there zero day tests. I am a member of MT also. I could see maybe 15/20 being excusable but 1/20.............Rather pathetic.
-
Chris and Sveta from MRG are friends of mine. SAS has done very poorly on there zero day tests. I am a member of MT also. I could see maybe 15/20 being excusable but 1/20.............Rather pathetic.
Yes, I know Chris and Sveta as well and we are working together on the samples - that are very nice people. I can easily put together a youtube/test of SAS, MBAM and Hitman using the samples we process and receive and see on live machines to show the same situation with SAS (likley) detecting more than others - it's the reality in the game - a single solution is NEVER enough.
Didn't you yourself test in the wild on home computers and found SAS detected items MBAM missed, and MBAM detected something we missed? The post in in this thread...
-
That was once...............With one sample. This is 20 samples and only 1 detection.
-
That was once...............With one sample. This is 20 samples and only 1 detection.
Yes, once with a REAL WORLD infection on a REAL USERS computer - that's actual testing, not scanning a folder on a desktop of samples that may or may not have come from a real users computer. Detecting honeypot or harvested samples rarely is the same as active users computers - why do I know this? Because we receive the VirusTotal Samples, MRG Samples and samples from 10's of thousands of daily downloads - and what we see is that there often is little crossover between the VT/MRG and the actual machines as far as "zero-day" and "spreading" infections. So your test was more "real-world" (whom we are geared to help) than a random folder scan test or scanning older samples.
-
So are you justifying these failures and missed samples?
-
So are you justifying these failures and missed samples?
I am trying to educate real users in the real world. You yourself saw it in action on your customers machines - that's real-world. Again, you didn't go to customer machines, copy some random files on the desktop and scan those - you scanned real machines with real infections in the wild, paid for by real people and saw that SUPERAntiSpyware 5.0 detected items missed by MalwareBytes and you saw the opposite on another machine - which just proves the abosolute fact that a single solution is not enough these days - each product will catch different things on different days.
For example, I just processed 2 dozen samples that MBAM, AVG and 28 others didn't detect (they were detected by ESET and KIS), but now on our next definition release, SUPERAntiSpyware will - when MBAM and others get around to those they will eventually detect them - that's the way it works.
-
No Anti-spyware, Anti-malware, and Anti-virus program can detect everything. :P
-
No Anti-spyware, Anti-malware, and Anti-virus program can detect everything. :P
... nope, but a so called "AV suite" can, as it includes anti-spyware abilities
>>> test this with Avast http://www.spycar.org/ (to be taken as just an example, not the ultimate proof of anything, like any test).
-
I love when people say small samples don't matter. I work for an engineering company. Believe me when we are testing beta products and 19 fail out of 20......................The presses stop. Emergency kicks in and everybody is curious to see what happened. No one says "Well it was only 20 pumps". Whatever. So if 11 apples are bad in a bag full of 12 you will still buy it? NOT. So if Avast missed 19 samples out of 20 you would say "So what".
-
I did notice a bug. I have the option to show the right click scan in explorer context menus selected and it's not there. Only the ones for Avast! and MBAM are showing.
First the latest version is now 5.0.1078 and the right click context menu entry is there on my XP Pro system. Have you rebooted since installing/updating (?), I found today when I updated to the latest 5.0.1078 build that afterwards it was still showing the old build in the tooltip. Restarting SAS then showed the correct build.
I have the latest build and have rebooted a few times. There is still no context menu scan entry showing.
-
I did notice a bug. I have the option to show the right click scan in explorer context menus selected and it's not there. Only the ones for Avast! and MBAM are showing.
First the latest version is now 5.0.1078 and the right click context menu entry is there on my XP Pro system. Have you rebooted since installing/updating (?), I found today when I updated to the latest 5.0.1078 build that afterwards it was still showing the old build in the tooltip. Restarting SAS then showed the correct build.
I have the latest build and have rebooted a few times. There is still no context menu scan entry showing.
What OS, etc.? What other security software is running? We'll track it down!
-
OK, here we go again.
If you test 20 samples, and 19 fail... you should be asking "is there anything wrong with my sample selection?". "Did I actually choose 19 samples of the same malware family?" etc.
There are hundreds of thousands of samples out there that the particular product doesn't detect, no matter what product it is... so unless you're pretty damn sure that your selection is random, well representing the overall situation (or not - sure, you can be interested in your local malware, in which case the sample set should represent that, of course) - then no, the result is meaningless, and the correct reaction is "so what".
-
I love when people say small samples don't matter. I work for an engineering company. Believe me when we are testing beta products and 19 fail out of 20......................The presses stop. Emergency kicks in and everybody is curious to see what happened. No one says "Well it was only 20 pumps". Whatever. So if 11 apples are bad in a bag full of 12 you will still buy it? NOT. So if Avast missed 19 samples out of 20 you would say "So what".
Well good thing I am the president/CEO of successful anti-spyware company and have been in the trenches for 27 years in software development, spending the last 11 years in security software so I do understand the reality of these situations. Yes, we may get the "stop" button pressed on your test, but then the other company (just as has happened) has the same emergency and guess what, SUPERAntiSpyware is the one that fixes the problem and the "go" button gets pressed.
There is no real argument you can make - meaning NO single product can catch everything on a given day so a layered solution of anti-spyware+anti-virus+firewall is the solution so for instance running Avast+SUPERAntiSpyware+MBAM makes and excellent layered set of protection.
SUPERAntiSpyware is an effective tool in the fight against malware - we don't view Avast, MBAM, etc. etc. etc. and the 200 other products as competitors as we are ALL working TOGETHER in the fight against malware.
You just need to realize that the enemy is the malware/infection NOT SUPERAntiSpyware (or any other product helping in the fight!) - for some reason you are getting too focused on SUPERAntiSpyware and trying to attack us and our effectiveness. We've had over 40 million downloads and been around for over 7 years, surely that wouldn't be the case if we never detected malware/spyware, etc. etc.
-
and guess what, reason why this thread can survive here is that SAS is not perceived by Avast as a competitor ;) ... many of us here use it (like mbam) as a secondary source of security info on a system and that's it, we live in a wonderful world and there's no reason to argue ;D
-
Well I started this thread so it can be locked. I already Revo'ed SAS.
-
Well I started this thread so it can be locked. I already Revo'ed SAS.
Of course you did - that's what you do! I am here to help if anyone needs it!
-
I would rather use MBAM,HMP and Emsisoft Emergency Kit over SAS. Thank you for your input. I have a business to run and customers to please. I cannot fart around with tools that MAY remove malware. I stopped using SAS years ago and this is why.
-
I would rather use MBAM,HMP and Emsisoft Emergency Kit over SAS. Thank you for your input. I have a business to run and customers to please. I cannot fart around with tools that MAY remove malware.
Yes, like when you fixed a customers system with SUPERAntiSpyware and the others didn't, like that? LOL. Good luck out there!
-
I would rather use MBAM,HMP and Emsisoft Emergency Kit over SAS. Thank you for your input. I have a business to run and customers to please. I cannot fart around with tools that MAY remove malware.
Yes, like when you fixed a customers system with SUPERAntiSpyware and the others didn't, like that? LOL. Good luck out there!
That was 1 house call. 1. I bet your proud of those stats. I normally use my Kaspersky Recuse Disk. But I wanted to try SAS.
-
Dieselman why do you have to be so inflamatory to every one who expresses and opinion contrary to yours. Superantispyware came here to answer any questions or queries - not to be slagged off... Or was that your intent.
As allready stated this is recommended here as a part of the layered security for a system. There is nothing that will catch everything - End ..Of...Story
So please wind your neck in
-
I would rather use MBAM,HMP and Emsisoft Emergency Kit over SAS. Thank you for your input. I have a business to run and customers to please. I cannot fart around with tools that MAY remove malware.
Yes, like when you fixed a customers system with SUPERAntiSpyware and the others didn't, like that? LOL. Good luck out there!
That was 1 house call. 1. I bet your proud of those stats.
Yep - so you got paid on that one instead of having another upset customer :) Glad we could help! One more happy user helped in the fight against malware! SUPERAntiSpyware made you look good to that customer!
-
This is my thread essaxboy. Thank you. I didn't ask for SuperAntispy to come in here. I made this thread to inform our members that there was a new version of SAS. But it turns out that's its still the same old SAS. Just with some new looks.
-
Ah my apologies I did not know you owned this
-
This is my thread essaxboy. Thank you. I didn't ask for SuperAntispy to come in here. I made this thread to inform our members that there was a new version of SAS. But it turns out that's its still the same old SAS. Just with some new looks.
Yep! Light, Effective and Powerful! Thanks Dieselman!
-
@the OP (and nothing else but the OP) lol ::) once a thread has been started, and quite a few members posted in it, there's no such thing like "this is my thread" ... especially considering that you've been hijacking threads where Essexboy was already helping quite a few times now.
oups... 8)
-
@SUPERAntiSpy: I'm gonna test your product again!, you don't only fight malwares in computer, but you can fight malware-like users in web forums too ;D *Thumbs up*
-
Nick :)
Please don't be upset because of Dieselman.
There are many Avast! users who use SAS and we appreciate your input here. I am going to try the new version. Thank you :)
Greetz, Red.
-
I have encountered more problems with this new version. I have to preface this by saying that on the original install, I installed it over v4.5 and it had a glitch when doing so. It appeared to go smoothly until the end when I clicked on finish and got the pop up about the setup encountering an error and needing to close. The program ran fine after that except for the fact that there was no right click context scan option showing.
I decided to uninstall SAS and reinstall v5 from scratch. I tried to follow my usual procedure of using CCleaner to uninstall it. I clicked to run the uninstaller and nothing happened. I tried to run it again and it said the file could not be found. I looked in the Program Files folder of SAS and the only thing that had been removed was the uninstaller itself. Everything else was still there and the SAS program still functioned fully. I ran the installer again and got the uninstaller back. I then attempted to manually run the uninstaller from the Program Files folder and once again, it only removed itself. I then double clicked on the uninstall file with the DOS box icon and voila, SAS was removed. After the required reboot, I ran CCleaner's registry cleaner followed by Auslogics and Registry Mechanic to make sure all traces were gone. (there were quite a few things left over).
After another reboot, I then downloaded the latest version of SAS 5 and installed it. This time there was no error at the end but, I'm sorry to say, there still is no context menu option for a scan. I still only have options for Avast!, MBAM, and 7-zip. There also is no mention of an uninstaller in the Program Menu folder.
-
Generally I use the windows add remove programs to uninstall an application.
I can't recall if there was an uninstall in the Program Menu folder in my previous installation.
I have lots of other programs that don't have an uninstall in the Program Menu folder.
-
Generally I use the windows add remove programs to uninstall an application.
I can't recall if there was an uninstall in the Program Menu folder in my previous installation.
I have lots of other programs that don't have an uninstall in the Program Menu folder.
I'm pretty sure that CCleaner uses the same routines as add/remove does and the fact that running it manually didn't work either suggests that add/remove would have failed as well. I use CCleaner because it populates the list much faster and the scroll wheel on my mouse works where it doesn't in the add/remove list. I also follow up an uninstall with a run of CCleaner's registry cleaner so it's faster to already have the program open.
-
SUPERAntiSpyware is an effective tool in the fight against malware - we don't view Avast, MBAM, etc. etc. etc. and the 200 other products as competitors as we are ALL working TOGETHER in the fight against malware.
Thanks for that statement. That's precisely what I tell those at the seminar I give when the statement is made as to
comparing the abilities of various security programs.
I do however always mention that in my opinion, avast!6 is the best antivirus on the market Free or paid. :)
-
Nick :)
Please don't be upset because of Dieselman.
There are many Avast! users who use SAS and we appreciate your input here. I am going to try the new version. Thank you :)
Greetz, Red.
I am not upset at all! This type of interaction invites communication and we are all in this together to fight malware!
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Wishful thinking will not make this go away. As long as there's a buck to be made,
the bad guys will be out there looking for suckers. :'(
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Wishful thinking will not make this go away. As long as there's a buck to be made,
the bad guys will be out there looking for suckers. :'(
Yeah I guess your right ;D They the bad guys will continue making viruses till the end of the world comes :P ::)
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Not as long as Windows is around.
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Not as long as Windows is around.
And of course macs ;D
Windows has a lot of viruses for them.. macs have a few.. and linux does have viruses but there isn't as much viruses for linux Yet
-
If only viruses didn't exist :D but as long as greed exsts there will always be viruses... ::)
I did look at the new super anti spyware and I can't wait for it to come out gui looks waaay better :D
do you think the pro version is worth it? just curious ;D
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Not as long as Windows is around.
It really has nothing to do with Windows. If the MAC OS or even Linux would have been the predominant player for the last 20 years, they would have been the ones under attack and the ones people were blaming.
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Not as long as Windows is around.
It really has nothing to do with Windows. If the MAC OS or even Linux would have been the predominant player for the last 20 years, they would have been the ones under attack and the ones people were blaming.
exactly.. but no matter how many times this will be repeated, MS will still be stigmatized as a satanic OS ;D
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Not as long as Windows is around.
It really has nothing to do with Windows. If the MAC OS or even Linux would have been the predominant player for the last 20 years, they would have been the ones under attack and the ones people were blaming.
exactly.. but no matter how many times this will be repeated, MS will still be stigmatized as a satanic OS ;D
But His Steveness the first Jobs is doing what he can to change that image by openly trying to gain world dominion... He has become worse than Bill Gates has ever been thought to be.
-
Someday soon I hope malware, trojans, spyware will all be things of the past. :P :P
Not as long as Windows is around.
It really has nothing to do with Windows. If the MAC OS or even Linux would have been the predominant player for the last 20 years, they would have been the ones under attack and the ones people were blaming.
exactly.. but no matter how many times this will be repeated, MS will still be stigmatized as a satanic OS ;D
But His Steveness the first Jobs is doing what he can to change that image by openly trying to gain world dominion... He has become worse than Bill Gates has ever been thought to be.
And as the head of that corporation, isn't that exactly what he's supposed to be doing ???
If that wasn't his ultimate goal, he's be lacking in his duties.
I'm sure that's also Vince's Goal for Avast. Make avast! the best and dominant antivirus in the industry. :)
-
you can't compare an AV to an operating system Bob ;) ...let alone that there's currently no equivalent to the policy of exclusion applied on Apple systems, meaning that you have no other choice than accept, or move along (or jailbreak yeah I know...).
ps: an AV doesn't have the power to exclude anything, it's just an app.
-
you can't compare an AV to an operating system Bob ...l
Why not, I just did. ;D ;D
-
I just ran my first scan using the latest build and in the 45 min.
that it took to do a quick scan, it found 3 false positives (which I reported)
and 109 tracking cookies. :o
-
I just ran my first scan using the latest build and in the 45 min.
that it took to do a quick scan, it found 3 false positives (which I reported)
and 109 tracking cookies. :o
That's why I gave up on SUPERAntiSpyware and have MBAM.
MBAM does a Quick scan in less than 5 minutes and does not detect any cookies nor false positives. 8)
-
MBAM does a Quick scan in less than 5 minutes and does not detect any cookies nor false positives.
you can turn off the cookie scan ;)
-
after reading this topic and posts of SUPERAntiSpy I decided to test SUPERAntiSpyware service more technically.
I tested Free version in a Windows 7 (32Bit) Machine.
I watched activity of SUPERAntiSpyware and it's background service:
With the options in Hijack Protection enabled it was working crazy every second to read the 2 keys in registry to see if Home Page is changed or not. But after disabling them, SUPERAntiSpyware is totally idle and has no activity at all and can be ignored.
Even activity of FingerPrinter reader (driver) in my laptop is more than SAS. SAS Drivers had no impact at all (yet it could be better if Portable Version did not use them)
Quick Scan took 10 minutes, found 89 cookies and 2 FPs.
-
...and does not detect any cookies nor false positives. 8)
To me MBAM has lots of FPs in both IP and File/System guards. :(
-
Looks like Dman was right on.
-
...and does not detect any cookies nor false positives. 8)
To me MBAM has lots of FPs in both IP and File/System guards. :(
I have had more FPs in MBAM than SAS, considering MBAM doesn't check for cookies it is no surprise it doesn't find/detect any. On my XP Pro system, I have cookies scan option disabled in SAS Pro, personally I feel that should be the default option and let those of a paranoid sensitivity enable it.
I only have MBAM free on-demand on my XP system but MBAM pro on my win7 netbook, not a peep out of it on IP checking, which isn't a surprise.
-
...and does not detect any cookies nor false positives. 8)
To me MBAM has lots of FPs in both IP and File/System guards. :(
Never a peep for me! 8)
But then I don't use Avira. ;)
-
......not a peep out of it on IP checking, which isn't a surprise......
if you try entering the adresses posted by Polonus....it usually peep... ;D
-
I just ran my first scan using the latest build and in the 45 min.
that it took to do a quick scan, it found 3 false positives (which I reported)
and 109 tracking cookies. :o
Can you post your scan log, I'd like to see how many items were scanned on your 45 minute quick scan - that was a quick scan right? Did you change any of the default settings?
-
......not a peep out of it on IP checking, which isn't a surprise......
if you try entering the adresses posted by Polonus....it usually peep... ;D
Since I'm not on my win7 netbook I only have MBAM free on this system.
-
I just ran my first scan using the latest build and in the 45 min.
that it took to do a quick scan, it found 3 false positives (which I reported)
and 109 tracking cookies. :o
That's why I gave up on SUPERAntiSpyware and have MBAM.
MBAM does a Quick scan in less than 5 minutes and does not detect any cookies nor false positives. 8)
Our quick scan shouldn't take that long, especially in 5.0 - I'd like to see the scan logs from a long scan to see what might be happening. Also, scan time really shouldn't be a factor if a product is fixing a system when others couldn't - it seems to only be a factor to all the techs using our free edition to fix clients computers :)
-
Our quick scan shouldn't take that long...
If I connect my external hard drive Quick Scan would take near one hour as I have about 200GB of Software Archive in that (plus over 1TB of media files). I don't know why Quick Scan with all default settings scan those locations too.
-
so far I like SAS the best detects way more than spybot(i know.. outdated ;)) and has less of a footprint than ad-aware use it in combonation with malwarebytes and avast :D
-
I'd like to see the scan logs from a long scan to see what might be happening.
The short scan took 45 min. The hard drive is 2TB which is more than 1/2 full.
Sorry but I don't have time to wait for a full scan to run.
I know the system is clean and that's just too much time to waist. Sorry.
-
I have only used MBAM as on demand and in all my time of using it, I have never had a FP from it. SAS 5 gave me two but they're sort of understandable because the file it detected is a hacked (legally) version of a game executable. The only thing it does is let you play the game without having to have the game CD in the drive but since the file is altered , it may be fair game for a malware detector to question it.
-
Surprise! Today SAS detected 2 malware file in my friend's computer which MSE, Avira, MBAM, Hitman Pro missed to detect! This is second time I see this happens! (his computer has been infected with rouge AV when he had MSE)
-
I found SAS 5.0 used more HDD space. But SAS did appear to have faster scans compared to 4.51.xxx.
The new GUI is a bit more flashy. You might think I'm a bit odd but I still prefer SpyBot S&D as an on-demand scanner.
To each his own. :)
-
Late to the party once again. :)
I as using SAS 4.x real-time however 4.52 if I recall correctly was really buggy. So much so that I removed it. Last night I downloaded and installed 5.x Beta. Seems lighter on resources and so far no problems.
I just ran what SAS calls a "Critical Point Scan" on my two desktops
Desktop A
---------------------------
Memory Items Scanned 508
Registry Items Scanned 61,464
File Items Scanned 7,221
Scan Time 1:33
Desktop B
---------------------------
Memory Items Scanned 316
Registry Items Scanned 63,278
File Items Scanned 7,219
Scan Time :47 or 47 seconds
Full System scans last night took about 20 minutes on both computers
-
By full scan do you mean, SAS Complete scan ?
If you mean the avast Full System scan then you can't really compare the two scans.
Just done an SAS Quick scan and that took 2min:20sec
The SAS Critical point scan seems to be very small 57sec
Whilst my last avast Quick scan was 1min:36sec.
* Scan name: Quick scan
* Started on: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:15:00 AM
* VPS: 110528-1, 28/05/2011
*
Infected files: 0
Total files: 18151
Total folders: 4653
Total size: 4.7 GB
*
* Scan stopped: 29 May 2011 00:16:36
* Run-time was 1 minute(s), 36 second(s)
-
Wow, this is what I get now from a Quick Scan by Avast!.
* Scan name: Quick scan
* Started on: Monday, May 30, 2011 8:00:20 PM
* VPS: 110530-1, 05/30/2011
*
Infected files: 0
Total files: 18596
Total folders: 4901
Total size: 7.3 GB
*
* Scan stopped: Monday, May 30, 2011 8:10:48 PM
* Run-time was 10 minute(s), 28 second(s)
-
Not sure which system you were scanning but either is considerably lower spec than my Core2Duo as I recall it being said that avast is optimised to take advantage of the Intel multi core chips (this was some time back, so would have been the Duo core chips).
So that would probably make a big difference.
However, this topic is after all about SAS.
-
Does SAS 5.0 have any bugs? I want to know cause i might download it.
-
Does SAS 5.0 have any bugs? I want to know cause i might download it.
The Latest version 5.0.1086 is very stable and I had no issues whatsoever with all of the previous builds too. :)
-
Does SAS 5.0 have any bugs? I want to know cause i might download it.
The Latest version 5.0.1086 is very stable and I had no issues whatsoever with all of the previous builds too. :)
I haven't experienced any problems with it from the initial pre-release to this latest build.
-
Not sure which system you were scanning but either is considerably lower spec than my Core2Duo as I recall it being said that avast is optimised to take advantage of the Intel multi core chips (this was some time back, so would have been the Duo core chips).
So that would probably make a big difference.
However, this topic is after all about SAS.
Yes but when I tried SAS 5 it did a quick scan in 4:30, about a minute more than MBAM and really no faster than with the 4.xxx versions.
I just reinstalled it and updated to build 1086. It did a quick scan in 3:58 and, amazingly, this time even gave me the right click context menu item which NO previous version ever had.
-
I have no connection to SAS other than being a user.
If you install the Beta and have no license you can go to update the definitions. After the definitions are downloaded and installed you get their sales pitch which for today at least is for a single license.
1 Pro-Version $9.95
2. Lifetime updates $9.95
Total cost $19.90
-
I don't know if any other SAS users noticed but at least for the Beta SAS is updating virus definitions two to three times a day which as I recall is more frequent than they used to update virus definitions.
-
This is strange. I had the right click context menu item when I installed SAS but, now it's gone again. I only have scan options for Avast and MBAM.
-
This is strange. I had the right click context menu item when I installed SAS but, now it's gone again. I only have scan options for Avast and MBAM.
Go to Preferences---------Scanner Control------Scanning Options and make sure the bottom box is checked.
current release is 5.0.1088
-
This is strange. I had the right click context menu item when I installed SAS but, now it's gone again. I only have scan options for Avast and MBAM.
Go to Preferences---------Scanner Control------Scanning Options and make sure the bottom box is checked.
current release is 5.0.1088
It is checked and I have the current release. I have never had the right click item with any version of SAS I have ever used. I only had it with this new version until I restarted the computer, then it disappeared once again.
I have discovered why the menu option disappears. It only shows if SAS is running or if you have selected to show the icon in the system tray (which means it's running). This is terrible program design in my opinion. MBAM does not require the application to be running to show the option for a right click scan and there is no reason why SAS should either. I'm leaning strongly towards uninstalling SAS again because of it's poor design.