AS test results SAS AVG CS & AA

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by custom410, Mar 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. custom410

    custom410 Guest

    Hi there,
    I am new to this forum. It is very informative and helpful, thanks everyone.
    I just thought I would post some test results that I just got from some scans using CounterSpy, AVG Anti-Spyware, SUPERantispyware, and Ad-Aware SE. This is just a simple scan of my machine after a regular week of usage, and nothing added (purposely anyway) for the test.

    Sunbelt Countersy V2 (paid):
    Scan History Details
    Start Date: 3/30/07 7:56:47 AM
    End Date: 3/30/07 8:16:03 AM
    Total Time: 19 Min 16 Sec
    Detected security risks
    No risks were found during this scan.

    AVG Anti-Spyware trial:
    + Scan result:
    :mozilla.6:C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Application data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\eyrnpozn.default\cookies.txt -> TrackingCookie.Com : No action taken.
    :mozilla.27:C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\eyrnpozn.default\cookies.txt -> TrackingCookie.Netflame : No action taken.
    :mozilla.23:C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\eyrnpozn.default\cookies.txt -> TrackingCookie.Paypal : No action taken.
    ::Report end

    Superantispyware 3.6.1000 free:
    Scan type : Complete Scan

    Memory items scanned : 370
    Memory threats detected : 0
    Registry items scanned : 4518
    Registry threats detected : 0
    File items scanned : 23928
    File threats detected : 10

    Adware.Tracking Cookie
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@fastclick[2].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@adopt.euroclick[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@doubleclick[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@2o7[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@atwola[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@atdmt[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@ads.stardoll[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@media.fastclick[2].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@realnetworks.112.2o7[1].txt
    C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\Cookies\rob@questionmarket[2].txt

    Ad-Aware Personal SE:
    ArchiveData(March 30, 2007.bckp)
    Referencefile : SE1R163 26.03.2007

    obj[0]=IECache Entry :
    obj[1]=IECache Entry :
    obj[2]=IECache Entry :
    obj[3]=IECache Entry :
    obj[4]=IECache Entry :
    obj[5]=IECache Entry :
    obj[6]=IECache Entry :
    obj[7]=IECache Entry :
    obj[8]=IECache Entry :

    Well there you have it. I just thought some may find this interesting for comparative purposes. I apologise if I have posted somewhere it should not be.

  2. btman

    btman Registered Member

    Feb 11, 2006
    But the fact none of those could have done anything if they stayed on your machine makes this "test" useless. Cookies are harmless.
  3. glentrino2duo

    glentrino2duo Registered Member

    May 8, 2006
    CCleaner could remove them so easily..
  4. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Nov 2, 2006
    You got a cookie jar.:D
    But thank you for sharing, much appreciated.
  5. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Jan 18, 2007
    I could send you a couple of rustock & other assorted trojans if you really want to compare those 3 scanners. :D
  6. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    I can offer some aggressive test samples also but i would also have to suggest Power Shadow before going thru with them. Not that they won't do the job but my recomendation is test "active" "real" malware on either a system for that purpose or in a virtual setup as to not suffer a mistake that might consume more time then you want to spend searching down all the extras that can bind with most malware. Simply a dependable safeguard to allow you to test and restore completely intact your good machine after examining those actions\reactions.
  7. custom410

    custom410 Guest

    Thanks for everyones replies,
    I realise there is nothing harmful here. I posted simply to show the differing results of a few different applications after severaldays of average browsing. (The results of an average user?) Even though harmless, some picked things up, others didn't.

    I don't know if the fact that they are harmless items, should that make it easier for these programs to detect them (well known but harmles), or since they are harmless do some of these programs ignore them? Are some programs trying to make me feel better about using them by detecting things, no matter their significance?

    PLease excuse the ramblings of a novice. And no, thank you very much, I do not need anything nasty sent to me to really test. But I do appreciate the discussion. Thanks.
  8. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Dec 14, 2005
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
  9. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Nov 2, 2006
    Again, your contribution is appreciated, by me at least.
    Cookies raise some privacy issues, but if you use a decent browser, you can accept only cookies for trusted sites, and delete all cookies at the end of the browser session (keeping the trusted ones if you want), not to mention CCleaner that can delete them too.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.