Anti-Spyware Screening Results

[Ze Muffinman]

A few weeks ago, I started screening some anti-spywares.
Nothing big, just letting malware run loose on my system, let it infect
for about two days, take a system screenshot, disconnect all internet
traffic, scan with a product, score, restore from screenshot and scan
with something else... you get the picture.

So, well, here are the results, in case anyone is interested.

Which they're not.

So...
um...
okay...?
Here you go:

Ad-aware: 67%
Spybot: 33%
Webroot: 74%
Trend Micro Anti-Spyware: 81%
SUPERAntiSpyware: 90%
ZeroSpyware: 37%
CounterSpy: 51%
SpySheriff: 300% Got so many infections others missed! (xD)

[brian]

"Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:

> SpySheriff

Am I missing something here? SpySheriff IS spyware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpySheriff

[Nick Skrepetos]

brian wrote:
> "Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > SpySheriff
>
> Am I missing something here? SpySheriff IS spyware.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpySheriff

Brian,

Pretty sure he was just kidding on the SpySherif It detects items
that aren't even there

Nick Skrepetos
SUPERAntiSpyware.com
http://www.superantispyware.com

[Gaz]

Nick Skrepetos wrote:
> brian wrote:
>> "Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:
>>
>>> SpySheriff
>>
>> Am I missing something here? SpySheriff IS spyware.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpySheriff
>
> Brian,
>
> Pretty sure he was just kidding on the SpySherif It detects items
> that aren't even there
>
> Nick Skrepetos
> SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> http://www.superantispyware.com

Congratulations on your product getting such a high response. It seems
strange, because outside of this group, your product has a very low
exposure.

Gaz

[Nick Skrepetos]

Gaz wrote:
> Nick Skrepetos wrote:
> > brian wrote:
> >> "Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:
> >>
> >>> SpySheriff
> >>
> >> Am I missing something here? SpySheriff IS spyware.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpySheriff
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Pretty sure he was just kidding on the SpySherif It detects items
> > that aren't even there
> >
> > Nick Skrepetos
> > SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> > http://www.superantispyware.com
>
> Congratulations on your product getting such a high response. It seems
> strange, because outside of this group, your product has a very low
> exposure.
>
> Gaz

Gaz - thank you! Just so you know we also have high exposure on many
security forums such as Wilders, CastleCops, Spyware Warrior, etc.

SUPERAntiSpyware is one of seven (7) applications listed on Spyware
Warrior's trusted/recommended applications list:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_...tm#trustworthy

We also have almost 500,000 (it fluctuates between 400-600K) references
in Google, so someone outside the group must be linking to us and
talking about the product
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=superantispyware

We also have nice ratings on Download.com here:
http://www.download.com/SUPERAntiSpy....html?sb=2&v=0

We work hard to produce a quality product and stay on top of zero-day
threats.

Nick Skrepetos
SUPERAntiSpyware.com
http://www.superantispyware.com

[Ze Muffinman]

Yes, you are. It's called a "sense of humor" - you should look it up
sometime.
brian wrote:
> "Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > SpySheriff
>
> Am I missing something here?

[Ze Muffinman]

In a less mean reply, the "300%" was supposed to be the joke - the
highest possible rating is obviously "100%", so anything higher meant
it detected things that weren't there.
brian wrote:
> "Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:
>
> > SpySheriff
>
> Am I missing something here?

[Brian]

On 1 Nov 2006 20:33:31 -0800, Ze Muffinman wrote:

> In a less mean reply, the "300%" was supposed to be the joke - the
> highest possible rating is obviously "100%", so anything higher meant
> it detected things that weren't there.
> brian wrote:
>> "Ze Muffinman" <EverybodyScanNow@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1162412675.438810.234760@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:
>>
>>> SpySheriff
>>
>> Am I missing something here?

whoops, sorry, I was a little tired and under the weather and didn't catch
it.