superantispyware vs Malwarebytes

[Dustin Cook]

"AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net> wrote in news:ge3net$pl7$1@aioe.org:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B43EB2F13D5DHHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .

>> I don't know what it is you do, or what applications you use, nor do
>> I know how many others have access to your computer, so I can't say
>> what's actually the problem. I can pretty much say tho, somebody who
>> has access isn't practicing safe hex.
>
>
> Welllllll, with 5 people in the house, (3 kids), and several systems
> networked, there is no way to keep everything out.
> The kids aren't supposed to use my system (they have their own), but
> as it's in my office, they often do for homework, and I won't stop
> them from doing that.
> But they have been taught what to normally avoid, and if they think a
> system might be infected, it's immediately shut down until I can check
> it.

Aha! It's alright; considering the potential amount of users your machine
comes in contact with, the fact your rarely infected is outstanding.

> But I'm sure many others in my position, have systems so loaded with
> garbage they won't even run, so I think I'm doing a fairly good
> job.<g>

Yes, by comparison, you certainly are.

>> Backups aren't for malware, alone. Hardware failure can take your
>> data too. You have a higher chance of a hard disk failure than you do
>> of catching a virus if and only if you practice safe hex. One you can
>> prevent, the other isn't much upto you.
>
>
> Absolutely agree.
> The backup was a habit I got into years ago, (when drives were far
> less reliable) and often serves little use.
> But when its needed......if a drive starts acting up, or somebody
> erases the wrong files, or a terminal virus brings all the systems
> down. It sure is nice to have, and lets me sleep well every night
> knowing it's there.

Indeed! I'm overly paranoid I suppose when it comes to backups. I just
don't want to lose anything important, so everything routinely gets
backed up. hehehe.


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

[Dustin Cook]

"AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net> wrote in news:ge3ph4$vm0$1@aioe.org:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B43EA89A7954HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>> newsL6dnW-8EYv6eZnUnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> From: "AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>| "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in message
>>>| news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
>>>>> Hi
>>>
>>>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>>>
>>>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>>>
>>>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>>>
>>>>> Now I'm wondering if I should switch on my own computer.
>>>
>>>>> I do recognise (from browsing here and other groups) that these
>>>>> products only provide a back-stop, and true protection comes from
>>>>> "safe-hex" - and from following such advice I haven't had any
>>>>> problems at all for a long long time. However, I'd like to think
>>>>> that I have the best "back-stop".
>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>| There is no such thing as "safe-hex" unless you disconnect all the
>>>| wires to your system and put a big latex balloon over it.
>>>| As soon as you shove in a disk or connect to the net you are
>>>| vulnerable.
>>>
>>>| As I see, another poster already mentioned use every program you
>>>| can get your hands on to check your system, as nothing is going to
>>>| catch everything. so any comparisons you may find will only be one
>>>| time situations. (and will almost always have some bias)
>>>
>>>| I just posted a comparison last week, but the results were hardly
>>>| "scientific", and all the programs missed things, or showed false
>>>| positives, that had to ultimately be removed or verified manually.
>>>| But at least they told me what to look for.
>>>
>>>
>>>| A regular regimen of backing up to an offline source (not system
>>>| restore) is your only sure fire way to never lose any data, or be
>>>| sure you can restore it after any infection.
>>>
>>>
>>>| Also I should say that "friends" who get in trouble will likely do
>>>| it again. Unless you can convince them not to open every attachment
>>>| they get, say yes to installing every program/add-on that will make
>>>| their system faster or their browser more functional, and stay away
>>>| from the "naughty" sites.
>>>
>>>| Even offering them anti-virus malware programs is pointless if they
>>>| then think they are totally invulnerable.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is such such a concept as "Safe Hex" and its all about how you
>>> use your computer and the practices you follow.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL, Don't bother Dave. this guy knows everything...
>>
>
>
> I fail to understand why you seem to think everyone is as perfect as
> you, and have nothing better to do all day than worry about what sites
> they might visit or have time to read about every new hole that some
> hacker has discovered.

My apologies, that was tongue in cheek humour and wasn't actually meant
as an attack on you Sir.

> Even you yourself just admitted that malwarebytes was compromised by
> some malware for a few days until an upgrade patched that. Until the
> hacker who's code targeted specific applications does it again.

I wouldn't say compromised... No security risk, just couldn't run. It's a
targetted attack, and not something one can easily prevent.

> So my saying no one scanner can be trusted completely, and people
> should use everything they can get their hands on, as well as learning
> at least the basics of how to clean manually is hardly foolish talk.

I don't believe I said it was.

> And ultimately no scanner will ever be as reliable as a good backup,
> to remove all traces of sin.

As long as the backup isn't compromised. I agree.


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

[wasted]

"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B43EBE29C329HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
> news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>
> Wouldn't be of much use. SAS and MBAM both update regularly. If you did a
> comparison today, two days down the road, one might be outdoing the
> other, and vice versa. It also depends on what your infected with.
>
>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>
> In that case, use us as an on-demand backup. That way, if SAS misses
> something, we might be able to catch it for you. And vice versa.
>
>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>
> The same can happen to MalwareBytes, and it has happened on several
> occasions now. SAS and MalwareBytes are both targetted by a few trojans
> now.
>
>
> The short of it all, Neither scanner will protect you from everything.
> Your safer using them both than one or the other.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>
Thankyou Dustin - a long and interesting thread, and now you've given me the
answer to my question. For me the position seems to be that I may as well
leave SAS running in background doing the realtime prevention, and use
Malwarebytes as a regular scanner - but the friend whose computer was
rescued has been persuaded to buy Malwarebytes! However, she seems to have a
congenital defect that makes her click on anything and everything before
engaging brain, so I don't think it will be too long before the next
problem!!

[Dustin Cook]

"wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
news:kcOdnVSxM_f72JrUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B43EBE29C329HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
>> news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>>
>> Wouldn't be of much use. SAS and MBAM both update regularly. If you
>> did a comparison today, two days down the road, one might be outdoing
>> the other, and vice versa. It also depends on what your infected
>> with.
>>
>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>>
>> In that case, use us as an on-demand backup. That way, if SAS misses
>> something, we might be able to catch it for you. And vice versa.
>>
>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>>
>> The same can happen to MalwareBytes, and it has happened on several
>> occasions now. SAS and MalwareBytes are both targetted by a few
>> trojans now.
>>
>>
>> The short of it all, Neither scanner will protect you from
>> everything. Your safer using them both than one or the other.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
> Thankyou Dustin - a long and interesting thread, and now you've given
> me the answer to my question. For me the position seems to be that I
> may as well leave SAS running in background doing the realtime
> prevention, and use Malwarebytes as a regular scanner - but the friend
> whose computer was rescued has been persuaded to buy Malwarebytes!
> However, she seems to have a congenital defect that makes her click on
> anything and everything before engaging brain, so I don't think it
> will be too long before the next problem!!

Nothing wrong with buying malwarebytes, if you wish to use it's resident
protection. One could always back it up with a realtime scan from SAS.
It's just the reverse of what your doing.

Besides, really, with the data value, why get cheap on decent protection?


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

[wasted]

"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B469D2B2B945HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
> news:kcOdnVSxM_f72JrUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B43EBE29C329HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
>>> news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't be of much use. SAS and MBAM both update regularly. If you
>>> did a comparison today, two days down the road, one might be outdoing
>>> the other, and vice versa. It also depends on what your infected
>>> with.
>>>
>>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>>>
>>> In that case, use us as an on-demand backup. That way, if SAS misses
>>> something, we might be able to catch it for you. And vice versa.
>>>
>>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>>>
>>> The same can happen to MalwareBytes, and it has happened on several
>>> occasions now. SAS and MalwareBytes are both targetted by a few
>>> trojans now.
>>>
>>>
>>> The short of it all, Neither scanner will protect you from
>>> everything. Your safer using them both than one or the other.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>>
>> Thankyou Dustin - a long and interesting thread, and now you've given
>> me the answer to my question. For me the position seems to be that I
>> may as well leave SAS running in background doing the realtime
>> prevention, and use Malwarebytes as a regular scanner - but the friend
>> whose computer was rescued has been persuaded to buy Malwarebytes!
>> However, she seems to have a congenital defect that makes her click on
>> anything and everything before engaging brain, so I don't think it
>> will be too long before the next problem!!
>
> Nothing wrong with buying malwarebytes, if you wish to use it's resident
> protection. One could always back it up with a realtime scan from SAS.
> It's just the reverse of what your doing.
>
> Besides, really, with the data value, why get cheap on decent protection?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

Can the realtime protection of malwarebytes and SAS be running at the same
time?

And are there any issues for malwarebytes with 64bit Vista?

[Dustin Cook]

"wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
news:g4udnf417919CZTUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B469D2B2B945HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
>> news:kcOdnVSxM_f72JrUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>>
>>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9B43EBE29C329HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>>> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
>>>> news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't be of much use. SAS and MBAM both update regularly. If you
>>>> did a comparison today, two days down the road, one might be
>>>> outdoing the other, and vice versa. It also depends on what your
>>>> infected with.
>>>>
>>>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, use us as an on-demand backup. That way, if SAS
>>>> misses something, we might be able to catch it for you. And vice
>>>> versa.
>>>>
>>>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>>>>
>>>> The same can happen to MalwareBytes, and it has happened on several
>>>> occasions now. SAS and MalwareBytes are both targetted by a few
>>>> trojans now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The short of it all, Neither scanner will protect you from
>>>> everything. Your safer using them both than one or the other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>>>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>>>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>>>
>>> Thankyou Dustin - a long and interesting thread, and now you've
>>> given me the answer to my question. For me the position seems to be
>>> that I may as well leave SAS running in background doing the
>>> realtime prevention, and use Malwarebytes as a regular scanner - but
>>> the friend whose computer was rescued has been persuaded to buy
>>> Malwarebytes! However, she seems to have a congenital defect that
>>> makes her click on anything and everything before engaging brain, so
>>> I don't think it will be too long before the next problem!!
>>
>> Nothing wrong with buying malwarebytes, if you wish to use it's
>> resident protection. One could always back it up with a realtime scan
>> from SAS. It's just the reverse of what your doing.
>>
>> Besides, really, with the data value, why get cheap on decent
>> protection?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>
> Can the realtime protection of malwarebytes and SAS be running at the
> same time?

No. It's never a good idea to run more than one resident/realtime
protection module. This applies to antivirus as well. Leave one resident,
use the others for on demand scanning only.

> And are there any issues for malwarebytes with 64bit Vista?

The protection module will not function under 64bit windows.


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

[wasted]

"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B4786305809AHHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247.. .
> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
> news:g4udnf417919CZTUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B469D2B2B945HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
>>> news:kcOdnVSxM_f72JrUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>>>
>>>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9B43EBE29C329HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250.. .
>>>>> "wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusn et:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't be of much use. SAS and MBAM both update regularly. If you
>>>>> did a comparison today, two days down the road, one might be
>>>>> outdoing the other, and vice versa. It also depends on what your
>>>>> infected with.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have SAS Pro running in the background on my own computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, use us as an on-demand backup. That way, if SAS
>>>>> misses something, we might be able to catch it for you. And vice
>>>>> versa.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, as recorded in a previous posting, when I was helping a
>>>>>> friend to recover from a problem, SAS wouldn't run, and it took
>>>>>> Malwarebytes to save the day!
>>>>>
>>>>> The same can happen to MalwareBytes, and it has happened on several
>>>>> occasions now. SAS and MalwareBytes are both targetted by a few
>>>>> trojans now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The short of it all, Neither scanner will protect you from
>>>>> everything. Your safer using them both than one or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>>>>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>>>>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>>>>
>>>> Thankyou Dustin - a long and interesting thread, and now you've
>>>> given me the answer to my question. For me the position seems to be
>>>> that I may as well leave SAS running in background doing the
>>>> realtime prevention, and use Malwarebytes as a regular scanner - but
>>>> the friend whose computer was rescued has been persuaded to buy
>>>> Malwarebytes! However, she seems to have a congenital defect that
>>>> makes her click on anything and everything before engaging brain, so
>>>> I don't think it will be too long before the next problem!!
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with buying malwarebytes, if you wish to use it's
>>> resident protection. One could always back it up with a realtime scan
>>> from SAS. It's just the reverse of what your doing.
>>>
>>> Besides, really, with the data value, why get cheap on decent
>>> protection?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
>> Can the realtime protection of malwarebytes and SAS be running at the
>> same time?
>
> No. It's never a good idea to run more than one resident/realtime
> protection module. This applies to antivirus as well. Leave one resident,
> use the others for on demand scanning only.
>
>> And are there any issues for malwarebytes with 64bit Vista?
>
> The protection module will not function under 64bit windows.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
> Aahh well that solves the issue for me - any plans for 64 bit
> compatibility? SAS is working fine!

[Dustin Cook]

"wasted" <rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com> wrote in
news:74GdnVAPDd57dpTUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusn et:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B4786305809AHHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247.. .

>Aahh well that solves the issue for me - any plans for 64 bit
>compatibility? SAS is working fine!

We are working on it.



--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org