How is CounterSpy V2?

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by AKAJohnDoe, Feb 5, 2008.

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

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I know, I know. The source is PC Magazine. Still, did anyone read this?

    I am particularly interested in first-hand experiences with CounterSpy V2. Anyone?
     
  2. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Sure. Over the past 6 months I got only 1 adware program, plus some cookies. Best antispyware program I have ever used.

    A novice to computing could use it, but to use its full potential it helps if you have experience with security issues and know more or less how the internet works (not on a technical level).

    I must be the only one who has set the active protection at paranoid ! Usually, 'cautious' is recommended.

    Counterspy is not the only security program I have, but it's probably the most effective antispyware program !

    At the moment, it's technically not an antivirus program so you may want something for that (although I've heard that they are working on an antivirus based on their VIPRE engine). What is also missing is something like a site guard, such as the Spy Sweeper has, or the McAfee Siteadvisor (which is NOT foolproof!). Basically, it's nice to have something that will tell you how safe it is to visit a site/click on something, although you should never rely on that.

    It's probably best to install it on a clean and stable system. I did that and never had any problems with it. A few times at startup the active protection was OFF, but it was easy to activate it again. If you don't do too many crazy things, it's fairly stable.
     
  3. guest

    guest Guest

    i dont like it.
    very slow update speed,
    high ram,cpu usage, higher than antivir premium, f-prot and many antivirus product
    it say suspicius, ... everything suspicius.
    60 mb setup, why? other internet security smaller than it.
    i think vipre is not ready.
    i think their database is not enougth
    other product like avg antispyware, a2squared usefull than it.
    no rigth click scanner.
    ...
    i think it is overstatement
     
  4. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    I couldn't disagree more with the previous poster !
    The update is indeed a bit slow. So ?

    And you shouldn't compare apples with oranges. It's not an antivirus product. Sunbelt recommends that you run an antivirus program along with it.
     
  5. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I couldn't agree more with this assessment. It uses way too many system resources. Sixty meg for an installer in insane, for an AV or AS. There are several programs I would use before this; Super Antispyware, Spyware Shield, a-squared Anti-Malware, Prevx. This is to security application what Nero is to burning application; bloated, slow and borderline useless. It definitely should not be used for on-access protection.
     
  6. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I installed CounterSpy V2 to trial it for 15 days.

    It is a big install package. So what? I gather that is from the whitelist I read about in the install guide.

    It took awhile to install and then to do the initial update. Subsequent updates went faster.

    Initial scan, set to full system, took awhile, too, but not as long as Windows Defender took.

    I am running Vista Home Premium. I have ZoneAlarm AntiVirus installed. I had previously turned off Windows Defender. So, I had a Firewall, AV, and no AS active prior to this installation of CounterSpy V2.

    CounterSpy V2 found nothing on the initial scan.

    I have it set at the "Paranoid" level and all that has popped up so far is a warning that it did not know about my Synaptics TouchPad.

    It does not seem to noticeably affect the speed or responsiveness of the PC.

    I'll leave it for awhile to see what happens, but my inclination is that I may not need it. Or any other AS in my current configuration given my computing habits. I just feel a bit, shall I say, "Paranoid", about not having AS...
     
  7. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    I tried and it slows your pc way down. Updates take for ever and to do a full scan on both my drives it took 3 hours. SAS and Spybot take about 52 minutes.
     
  8. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    CounterSpy V2.5.1043 runs lighter on my computer than SAS did. Although I haven't tried the new version 4. I left Spybot eons ago. The last scan of my two drives took 67 minutes and 22 seconds. As for updates they install quickly. Using it with NOD 2.70.32 makes for a nimble combination.
     
  9. KingKull

    KingKull Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Posts:
    20
    Location:
    New Jersey,USA
    I've been a CounterSpy user for some time now. It does take a while to merge its updates, but it runs nice and light on my Vista machine. If you want to talk about a resource hog, compare it to newer versions of Spy Sweeper. You'll see the difference.
    On my PC, a full scan with CS V2.5.1043, takes 38 minutes.
     
  10. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Remember that CounterSpy now includes a whitelist, so its installer its bigger than the one of your average scanner.
     
  11. MikeNAS

    MikeNAS Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Posts:
    697
    Location:
    FiNLAND
    Too big and slow to me. I like to run SAS & MAM on-demand only. No reason to use resident.
     
  12. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Day 2 with CounterSpy V2.

    No noticeable differences. PC runs same as before installing CounterSpy V2. Updates quickly (so far). Full scan runs a bit less than an hour, which is faster than other products (e.g.: Windows Defender; SpyBot S&D).
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2008
  13. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,730
    Location:
    localhost
    Uuuhm, KAV engine in ZA also cover spyware, adware, riskware, etc.
    Do you have the extended database (in the advanced option of the antivirus tab) ticked ?

    Cheers,
    Fax
     
  14. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    I just have one harddrive and while I don't know exactly how long a full system scan takes, it's certainly less than 45 minutes.
     
  15. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I do, which appeared to me to encompass some overlap in the two products, which is one of the reasons I questioned in an earlier post whether I needed CounterSpy V2, but still wanted to check out CounterSpy V2 for myself anyway.

    I uninstalled CounterSpy this afternoon.

    I did this for a couple of reasons:
    • I ran another full scan and found nothing, so I'm questioning whether I need it
    • I wanted to see how cleanly it uninstalled

    As for the uninstall: It is one of the cleaner uninstalls I've seen in some time. It did leave a folder under %APPDATA%, which I deleted, but that is all I found. I did deactivate active scanning and the other features and turned off CounterSpy V2 altogether before uninstalling. It even removed itself from Windows Security Center; most products mess this up so that it needs to be fixed.

    I will now run for a couple of days without it installed to see if any "oddities" occur. I am not expecting any.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2008
  16. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    (partial quote above)

    You found nothing ! Isn't that the hallmark of an antispyware program that prevents the installation of spyware?
     
  17. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I suppose so, but nothing ever before and nothing after is not exactly a valid test ;)
     
  18. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
    so your attributing your lack of spyware a success for Kiss or Counterspy?
     
  19. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Since I had never had a (known) Spyware infestation prior to installing CounterSpy V2 and found none while installed the possibilities include:
    • Luck
    • Good, prudent computing habits
    • ZoneAlarm protection works
    • CounterSpy protection works
    • ZoneAlarm protection does not work and infestations got through undetected
    • CounterSpy protection does not work and infestations got through undetected
    • ... and so forth

    I suspect the first four, myself. ;) A valid test would have been to knowingly try to infest my machine, which was not in my plan this go 'round.
     
  20. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Could not disagree more as my experience is completely different. Runs fairly light and fast on my system and on-access protection is exactly what I use it for.
     
  21. Gren

    Gren Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Posts:
    93
    I kept it on my system for 6 months or so but finally got so annoyed with the updates that I uninstalled. Sometimes these took around 5 mins or so as it seemed to be starting from scratch every now and then.

    I used to have it setup to update every login but this just made the computer unuseable for the first few minutes each time so I then changed this to manual only but this seemed to defeat the object.
     
  22. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    From what I understand, if the updates are more than 5 days old, then the ENTIRE update/definition file will be downloaded. That can take some time. I have also experienced problems in a situation like that (after reformatting and reinstalling Windows XP) when I reinstalled Counterspy with an old definitions file. Some kind of problem with the connection occured, but I managed (it took some time!) to download it all. The nature of the connection problem is unknown. This problem can be avoided if you download the updates daily. Either on a schedule (the computer must be on when scheduled!), or manually at reboot, which is my choice.

    Actually I wouldn't know how you could set it to update every login ! You can schedule it to check for updates at a specific time.
     
  23. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    Just had to trial this. Although it definitely runs a little lighter than Spy Sweeper on my pentium 4, 512MB PC, but I like the layout of SS's GUI a little bit more. From what I have read in reviews they are close as far as protection goes so the only conclusion I have come to so far about CS is that for 19.99 comapred to what SS sells for, it may be hard to beat. SuperAntiSpyware, which we all know is terrific, also sells for the same price, runs lighter and may well be more effective at removal so between those two it's a tough call. I have 14 more days to see how I like it, but for anyone still wondering about this program, it's quite nice and can be had for free through Trial Pay.
     
  24. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    My own experience: Counterspy, at least with its active protection at paranoid, offers better active protection than the Spy Sweeper.
    Of course, what works best depends on some things, in this case I'm taking into account 'safe browsing'.
    Which means for me, using a higher than normal security setting for IE 7 for EVERY ZONE, and not visiting dangerous sites. For example, the 'internet communications' shield of the Spy Sweeper blocks you from visiting some sites, but if you don't do that anyway it's a moot point.

    Later added: assuming you're not going to take the version of the Spy Sweeper with antivirus, you can take both !
    I use both of them, and have not noticed any conflicts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  25. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    Hey Fly. How intrusive is CS set at Paranoid Mode? On default settings it just popped up an alert for a Microsoft Update which isn't a big deal. Come to think of it. is anyone else getting a MS update today? Anyway, I like Spy Sweeper a little more, but as I mentioned my PC seemed to run a tad slower with it installed, than it does now with CS on boeard. I'm not even sure anyone needs an AS with Firefox, and something like Threatfire or Online Armor, but CS is a very nice app for 19.99. I wonder though how it would compare to SuperAntiSpyware for On Demand detection, and Real Time protection?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.