Do I still need a dedicated antispyware prog

[philebus]

Hi All,

I have a life subscription to superantispyware, but am wondering whether I still need to use it (especially since it doesn't seem to run too well with Avira on my computer).

Currently, I'm using:
comodo 2.4 firewall
boclean
Avira antivir premium
XP pro sp 3

Even though I use p2p I have never got a virus or trojan, so I am wondering if given this combo I really need to use SAS, especially since it has become buggy on my system of late? Does its real-time protection add any protection to that provided by avira and boclean?

any views appreciated

thanks

[Sjoeii]

You could use it on demand as a second opinion. I do it that way as well. No problem

[philebus]

Yes, I thought about that, but even if it didn't interfere with Avira, does it really ad any protection if run in real time?

I ask because Avira, like most good antivirus progs, now has pretty decent antispyware and antitrojan protection. Plus I am running a decent firewall (admittedly not version 3 which has too many pop ups for my taste) and a dedicated anti-trojan.

In fact, my question is really more general; do dedicated antispyware programs really have a future now that antivirus software includes antispyware. Sure they once were essential, but are they still?

[3xist]

The fact is NO company in the security industry can claim 100% protection. Avira Premium is an awesome, kick ass Antivirus. But again - does not provide 100% protection against every malware threat on the planet, So that's why you have 2nd opinions & alternatives. With malware these days, Even all every AV & AS together can't detect all malware - it is constantly growing and growing, and I can back up that claim.

SAS on-demand is a good choice. :thumb:

[icr]

You can also use Spybot S&D its free and i use it with my NIS for on demand scan only it doesn't in memory

[HURST]

Spybot WAS a good antispyware, but is now enjoying a nice and quite retirement. I wouldn't use it right now, there are many better choices.
Use SAS and, if you feel like it, add MBAM as a second opinion malware scanner.

SAS and MBAM=light, great support, great at removing nasties.

[Hugger]

I don't consider 'pretty good' to be a desireable level of protection.
Since you already own it why not use it.
Hugger

[optigrab]

You are looking to solve a problem that for practical purposes doesn't exist. You have a proven track record of clean computing (no malware). Don't be tempted to use grossly disproportionate resources (your time, money, and computing power) at an insignificant risk.

You don't need more active protection from malware. You are sufficiently protected. What you haven't mentioned is the contingency plan in case you are infected or some other much more likely catastophe were to happen, such as hardware malfunction, theft, bad install or update, or data corruption. You need a backup and/or imaging routine. Have one already? Then enjoy your computer and your life.

[icr]

-{ Quote: "Spybot WAS a good antispyware, but is now enjoying a nice and quite retirement. I wouldn't use it right now, there are many better choices.
Use SAS and, if you feel like it, add MBAM as a second opinion malware scanner.

SAS and MBAM=light, great support, great at removing nasties." }-
I tried SAS works good thanx

[djohn]

-{ Quote: "You are looking to solve a problem that for practical purposes doesn't exist. You have a proven track record of clean computing (no malware). Don't be tempted to use grossly disproportionate resources (your time, money, and computing power) at an insignificant risk.

You don't need more active protection from malware. You are sufficiently protected. What you haven't mentioned is the contingency plan in case you are infected or some other much more likely catastophe were to happen, such as hardware malfunction, theft, bad install or update, or data corruption. You need a backup and/or imaging routine. Have one already? Then enjoy your computer and your life." }-
Exactly,and IMO the most important security of all. a back up of a clean image to restore rather then countless hours of cleaning an infested machine or worse hardware failure.

[emperordarius]

You shouldn't use Avira with SAS on real time. SAS only on demand. I don't even think you really need it.

[MrBrian]

I recommend dumping the real-time antispyware and instead scanning higher-risk downloads with several on-demand antivirus apps.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Spybot WAS a good antispyware, but is now enjoying a nice and quite retirement....." }-

Why WAS it? And why do you say it's in retirement when it's still being downloaded and still gives updates?

[Someone]

-{ Quote: "Why WAS it? And why do you say it's in retirement when it's still being downloaded and still gives updates?" }-
A few years ago Spybot and Adaware were the best. Now they are significantly worse at detecting real-world threats, hence the term "retirement", since there are much better alternatives.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "A few years ago Spybot and Adaware were the best. Now they are significantly worse at detecting real-world threats, hence the term "retirement", since there are much better alternatives." }-

How do you know they are worse at detecting new threats than SAS and MBAM?

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "How do you know they are worse at detecting new threats than SAS and MBAM?" }-

Ad-Aware now detects only tracking cookies, at most some well known rouges, like Spy Sheriff, but nothing more. Spybot detects more, it's particularly good with Rogues, but it isn't nearly as good as SAS or MBAM when dealing with and removing Trojans and/or Rootkits. Also SAS and MBAM update much more frequently, and are better with new Vundos.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Ad-Aware now detects only tracking cookies, at most some well known rouges, like Spy Sheriff, but nothing more. Spybot detects more, it's particularly good with Rogues, but it isn't nearly as good as SAS or MBAM when dealing with and removing Trojans and/or Rootkits.." }-

How do you know this? What source of reference are you using? And what comparative testing have you done, and where are your results posted?

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "How do you know this? What source of reference are you using? And what comparative testing have you done, and where are your results posted?" }-

Eh, experience. Why don't you just get your hands on some of those tons of malware-infested boxes your friends keep pestering you with and try it yourself. I've been using AdAware and Spybot for years, but it's become essentially useless. It's been unable to fix the infections for quite some time, you spend lots of time letting it scan and "clean" the system and all the popup windows and resource-eating malware junk is back on next reboot.

The guys simply cannot keep the pace ATM, so why not use something that really works instead? ???

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Eh, experience. Why don't you just get your hands on some of those tons of malware-infested boxes your friends keep pestering you with and try it yourself. I've been using AdAware and Spybot for years, but it's become essentially useless. It's been unable to fix the infections for quite some time, you spend lots of time letting it scan and "clean" the system and all the popup windows and resource-eating malware junk is back on next reboot.

The guys simply cannot keep the pace ATM, so why not use something that really works instead? ???" }-

Ok. I use MAM and SAS anyway. I removed Spybot and Adaware

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: "How do you know this? What source of reference are you using? And what comparative testing have you done, and where are your results posted?" }-Truthseeker,
There's a difference between quantifiable evidence, anecdotal evidence, and hearsay. Unfortunately it seems the quantifiable evidence is in rather short supply when it comes to antispyware/anti-trojan products. On the other hand, there's a LOT of hearsay and anecdotal evidence available on the topic. Until some reliable authority performs an up-to-date comparative with a sound test methodology, you must take it all with a grain of salt, evaluate the source of the information, and make your choice. And that seems to be fine because
very few people use an AS/AT as their first line of defense
today's top-shelf AV's are probably as good as any dedicated AS/AT (though an AS/AT is usually a fine idea)
if one isn't prepared with a contingency plan for infections, they're simply not covered
malware isn't the only issue one needs to need be prepared for

If there is such an-up-to-date comparative, someone please point it out to me.

[Escalader]

-{ Quote: "Hi All,

I have a life subscription to superantispyware, but am wondering whether I still need to use it (especially since it doesn't seem to run too well with Avira on my computer).

Currently, I'm using:
comodo 2.4 firewall
boclean
Avira antivir premium
XP pro sp 3

Even though I use p2p I have never got a virus or trojan, so I am wondering if given this combo I really need to use SAS, especially since it has become buggy on my system of late? Does its real-time protection add any protection to that provided by avira and boclean?

any views appreciated

thanks" }-

We have a PC running very well with Avira and with SAS both real time. The difference is no CFW and no "boclean". All users IMHO need:

1) 2 way FW properly set up
2) Top tier AV, Avira, Nod32 etc
3) A solid ASW or AT like SAS
4) A HIPS
5) Imaging backup and recovery SW with images on external drive.

Which of 1 to 5 are you missing?

Each of 1 to 4 MUST have their exclusion options set to exclude all the others so as to minimize SW conflict. This is the likely cause of ;

-{ Quote: "(especially since it doesn't seem to run too well with Avira on my computer)." }-

Source reference? My own experience , good luck

PS it is possible to have two much security SW running in real time, 2 AV's clash, 2 HIPS etc.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Truthseeker,
There's a difference between quantifiable evidence, anecdotal evidence, and hearsay. Unfortunately it seems the quantifiable evidence is in rather short supply when it comes to antispyware/anti-trojan products. On the other hand, there's a LOT of hearsay and anecdotal evidence available on the topic. Until some reliable authority performs an up-to-date comparative with a sound test methodology, you must take it all with a grain of salt, evaluate the source of the information, and make your choice. And that seems to be fine because
very few people use an AS/AT as their first line of defense
today's top-shelf AV's are probably as good as any dedicated AS/AT (though an AS/AT is usually a fine idea)
if one isn't prepared with a contingency plan for infections, they're simply not covered
malware isn't the only issue one needs to need be prepared for

If there is such an-up-to-date comparative, someone please point it out to me." }-

Great post Steve Martin, oops, I mean optigrab :argh: :thumb:

[MrBrian]

See PC World article Are You Wasting Your Money Buying Antispyware Software? (http://www.pcworld.com/article/140211/are_you_wasting_your_money_buying_antispyware_software.html)

This link (http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02) shows on-demand detection rates of spyware and adware by various antivirus programs on 94,291 samples.

If you don't have any other solution, such as HIPS or LUA, to alert on or prevent bad behavior, then you may consider continuing to use an antispyware program that does so.

[philebus]

-{ Quote: "
Each of 1 to 4 MUST have their exclusion options set to exclude all the others so as to minimize SW conflict. This is the likely cause of .

Actually, I reinstalled windows xp, got rid of vista and now my clash between SAS and Avira is gone. Just one thing, how does one exclude other programs? Is it it simply a question of excluding them from scanning and excluding scanning comodo?