"FredW" <fredw@blackholespam.net> wrote in message
news:8iv8979km24vc3pmgcm8192c5jni8d3ge6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:10:37 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
> <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"FredW" <fredw@blackholespam.net> wrote in message
>>news:v896971mllrlhnil7775pv2akvueqa3p46@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:10:21 -0500, JD <JD@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>FredW wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 18:16:08 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
>>>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we know what the service belongs to and we knows there are 32 bit and
>>>>>> 64
>>>>>> bit versiosn.
>>>>>> The questiion is what does this SAS NT Service perform ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I found this thread in the SAS forum:
>>>>> http://forums.superantispyware.com/i...-core-service/
>>>>
>>>>I saw the same reply. It's not very helpful. That's why I set the
>>>>Service to manual. No adverse effect so far.
>>>
>>> I agree, it's a mystery.
>>
>>Let's play "what if ... ?"
>
> I did: "what if I close the service for which I can find no reason."
>
>
>>If you don't trust them, why are you running their program?
>
>
> Why would I run SAS twice per week when I would not trust SAS?
>
>
> I am just curious as what will happen when I stop a service with no
> visible purpose.

Purposes aren't always visible. In my above hypothetical scenario, there
would be no output event except failure when the hypothetical malware
was encountered.

> The manual update today performed as usual.
> The manual scan today performed as usual.
> Maybe one or the other performed a little bit slower,
> but I did not notice and I don't mind if that would be so.

I was just suggesting that it might be more important than it appears to
be if you are only judging by observing output events. For instance, if it
was an update thingy, you could log before and after disabling it and look
at difference data, and still get no clue as to its purpose of loading sooner
in the boot axis than some hypothetical malware loading from the registry.

Of course you can do as you like, in fact I'm perfectly happy not having
it at all - which is in effect the same as the hypothetical scenario except
I'm not using up any cycles to do so.