"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!!