"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:1eudnSrRxeXWM3DbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> <hal@not.here.com> wrote in message
> news:diape31ng2snb5q4ovq5jl9361opf2b3dh@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:59:17 -0500, hal@not.here.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:28:07 -0500, "VanguardLH"
>>><VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>hal wrote ...
>>>>> I've recovered from my Spy Sweeper debacle and downloaded
>>>>> SUPERAntiSpyware. I see it is supposed to have 'real time'
>>>>> protection
>>>>> built into it. Has anyone ever had it catch something in 'real
>>>>> time?'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope, but then I have yet to be infected (as can be so far detected by
>>>>the suite of anti-malware tools that I use). SuperAntispyware
>>>>cripples itself after the trial period so you don't get real-time
>>>>(on-access) protection. Still makes for a good on-demand scanner,
>>>>though, and why I immediately disabled the on-access protection since
>>>>it was going to disappear anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You didn't think enuf of it to keep it?
>>
>> I meant buy it, not merely keep the freebie version.
>
>
> I use an IPS (intrusion protection software) product to regulate what can
> run. Regardless of all the scanners, I still control what runs or not.
> Does require more expertise than relying on the static expertise coded in
> a scanner. Currently I am using System Safety Monitor. Antihook is a tad
> better but incurs too much impact on responsiveness of my host.

Since I work for individuals I don't have the luxury in denying them the use
of any software they want. If they don't take my advice then they give me
money again when it is broken again. Sounds fair to me.

cmsix

>