superantispyware vs Malwarebytes

[wasted]

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

[Rube Bumpkin]

wasted wrote:
>
> Any comparisons known that compare these two?
>
> Now I'm wondering if I should switch on my own computer.
>
> Thanks

Why not both?

I run those two, plus Spybot S&D and AdAware, weekly, plus AV in
background. They always find innocuous things, like cookies.

When a friend asks for help, I use them all as necessary, and recommend
weekly scans with all of them. Nobody ever does it, but...

RB

[Leythos]

In article <Pamdnd1Gvc5bN5nUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet >,
rubbish@xxnone.notreal.com says...
> 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!
>

There is no single product that will cover all malware. To be reasonably
safe you need to run multiple products - and I never run them active,
always manual scans. I run a Corporate version of Anti-Virus protection
that also provides network scanning, that's the only active scanner I
use.

I also use a Firewall Appliance that removes specific file types from
SMTP, POP3, FTP, HTTP and HTTPS sessions, block most foreign country
network ranges, and don't allow my family to run as local
administrators.

There is more to being protected than just running a scanner.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[AMUN]

"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.

[David H. Lipman]

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.


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[AMUN]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
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.


"Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a matter of
time before it gets you.

I am very careful, and still every few weeks, something gets in that I did
want.
While running a few anti-virus/malware programs helps to keep things under
control, there's always that one that gets through a couple of times a year.

[Leythos]

In article <ge2p1e$p04$1@aioe.org>, antispam@sparmmstop.net says...
> "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a matter of
> time before it gets you.
>

In my 30 years of using computers I've never personally had a virus or
"root-kit" on any of them. In all my years of designing secure networks
I've never had a compromised system on any managed network.

It's all about knowing the vectors and how to control exposure.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[David H. Lipman]

From: "AMUN" <antispam@sparmmstop.net>


| "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a matter of
| time before it gets you.

| I am very careful, and still every few weeks, something gets in that I did
| want.
| While running a few anti-virus/malware programs helps to keep things under
| control, there's always that one that gets through a couple of times a year.

A RootKit is just another trojan and if you practice Safe Hex then your propensity for it
getting on your PC is greatly diminished.

One think that most people neglect is keeping up pathes and updates for 3rd part
applications. It is these that are targeted in the vulnerability/exploitation vector that
often laeds to drive by downloads and infections.

Keeping all utilities and applications patched and updated, not just the OS, is a big part
in Safe Hex practices.


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Gaz]

wasted wrote:
> 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!

Some variants are stopping both SAS and MB from running, often its a very
simple block, and is tricked be renaming the exe file for either SAS or MB.

> Now I'm wondering if I should switch on my own computer.

Both products are excellent in their free versions, and a combination of
both should sort you out.
Most antispyware is of the 'clean it up' variety. You shouldnt need an
active scan if you are more careful with your browsing, especially around
porn sites and sites offering free music/warez.

Gaz

[Kayman]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:57:03 -0400, AMUN wrote:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> 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.
>
>
> "Safer" maybe, but if a rootkit has your name on it, it's only a matter of
> time before it gets you.
>
> I am very careful, and still every few weeks, something gets in that I did
> want.
> While running a few anti-virus/malware programs helps to keep things under
> control, there's always that one that gets through a couple of times a year.

Avoiding Rootkit Infection.
"The rules to avoid rootkit infection are for the most part the same as
avoiding any malware infection however there are some special
considerations:
Because rootkits meddle with the operating system itself they *require*
full Administrator rights to install. Hence infection can be avoided by
running Windows from an account with *lesser* privileges" (LUA in XP and
UAC in Vista).

Rootkits: What you should know
http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/article...9523773,00.htm

Secunia's Vulnerability Scanning program
http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/

Detection and removal
"You all know the drill, but it's worth repeating. Be sure to keep
antivirus/anti-spyware software (and in fact, every software component of
the computer) up to date. That will go a long way toward keeping malware
away. Keeping everything current is hard, but a tool such as Secunia's
Vulnerability Scanning program can help."

F-Secure Blacklight
RootkitRevealer
Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool
ProcessGuard

"The problem with these tools is that you can't be sure they've removed the
rootkit. Using a bootable CD, such as BartPE, with an antivirus scanner ¡X
albeit more labour-intensive ¡X will increase the chances of detecting a
rootkit, simply because rootkits can't obscure their tracks when they
aren't running. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to have a
clean computer, take a baseline, and then use an application such as
*Encase* (Google for it) to check for any additional code."