Newbie Question

Thanks again Ky. I have a thought. As part of my regular/routine quasoi-weekly maintenance.

EX disk clean clear IE history etc, if I new which specific folders should be checked by MBAM i.e. are there not some folders are more likely to have the specific malicious bugs the MBAM would have in their database?

System folder, or program folder or is there like a libraries folder for system and one for user etc....I hope the question makes sense I'm good about regular maintenance so if I had list for MBAM.

R6

 

I really don't want to re-hash what we've already discussed... but I need to re-emphasize two points:

1) SpywareBlaster indeed advocates layered SECURITY:
"Users and experts agree - it's best to have layered security.
And SpywareBlaster provides a powerful layer of protection against spyware and other potentially unwanted software. It is proven and trusted. "

That does NOT mean SB advocates layering real-time anti-virus programs.

If you look again at the list of programs I'm running, they coexist well precisely because they focus on different aspects of security, and/or run via non-conflicting mechanisms.

2) You wrote: "SB is the only real-time Anti-Bug program i'm running...". I've tried to explain that SB offers "passive", rather than real-time, protection. Quoting directly from Stapp's link:

Many protection programs are "resident", and must remain running in the background to keep your system protected.

SpywareBlaster does not need to remain running in the background to enable protection, which means there are no extra processes running and using up your computer's memory and processor.

===============

The SB references to SpyBot [and Ad-Aware] were dated in 2008. Both SpyBot and Ad-Aware were pioneers in their arena, and were highly recommended for several years. I'm talking back, say from about 2000-2005 or so. I myself used both of them. After a while --- when they tried to expand the program too much --- I gave up Ad-Aware. But I continued to use Spybot for many years... much longer than most people "in my circle". I finally gave it up as well, after concluding that SUPERAntiSpyware (SAS) and MBAM were far superior.

I consider MBAM PRO [real-time] my primary anti-malware program. For me, SAS Free [as an on-demand scanner] is secondary. I'll acknowledge that some people do the opposite: Using SAS PRO in real-time, and MBAM free on-demand. To each his own.

SAS scans for cookies, and can find many [perhaps hundreds] of them. MBAM does not scan for cookies at all.
That doesn't mean that SAS is doing a better job, just that it has a different focus. Cookies are simply TEXT files. They cannot inflict any damage to your system. But they can store some information about you, which can be accessed by the vendor(s). In other words, there can be a privacy issue with cookies [but not a malware issue].


===============

As far as scanning with MBAM, it suffices to run their QUICK scan. MBAM has taken into consideration exactly which folders are the likely targets for malware, and that's precisely where it looks. The QuickScan may take only 10%-15% of the time of a Full scan, yet it will catch 99.9% of the malware [in its database] that a full scan will.

 

Ok so MBAM automatically knows which ones are best when using quick scan. Thanks ky.

If I suspect I have done something stupid that is probably the first thing I think about using or very soon thereafter.

I think I understand all the other layering etc and probably just misspeak on myself on misunderstanding what is meant by various parties here.

I feel really good with my security and now adding MBAM quick scan to my regular maintenance.

R6

 

MBAM qick scan takes 12.35 minutes.

Avast quick scan takes 3.50 minutes

r6