MRG Flash Tests 2011

Yes, because it's obviously boycotting with false information. How is mine far from a fact? Prove to me SAS is completely useless.

 

I guess they are basing the opinion on the flash tests which SAS always fails
Of course it's not the end of world but it does shows to some extent their detection capabilities with some in the wild samples

 

Look at the MRG tests once again ...

 

It's never been useless for me.

 

If you want to waste your disk space you could keep it but I think there are better alternative out there Don't get me wrong: I read that SAS v5 should be much better than v4 - but I still can't see any improvements

 

I wouldn't use any AV, but for removal I've used it many times.

 

Sarcasm smiley already implies you're wrong.

Citing one source is just plain stupid, not to mention SAS did detect some things there. In real life, SAS can be quite useful.

 

In real life SAS can be useful but in most of the tests it's useless

 

I guess you purposely skipped the rest of my sentences, because you obviously haven't commented on the fact that SAS did detect some things in tests. Which every other product did, to varying degrees.

Since that means useless to you, I have nothing more to say.

 

No need to "prove" anything here.
Remember, you are fond of pointing out that opinions are being expressed.
One cannot "prove" an opinion.
My comments have been in relation to the topic of this thread... the MRG Flash Tests.
And when a security software fails repeated tests 7 or 8 times out of 10 (I don't have the most current summary of results), in the context of this topic, the software is ineffectual, or useless.

You are certainly free to cite tests (on a caliber with the MRG tests) that show this software to be effective.
SAS fails far more often than it passes. Not a time or two... not "on a given day" or "on a given sample" as some like to say. Most of the time. Maybe there are reputable tests out there that show otherwise. I think if they did exist, they would be prominently displayed by now.

A question for Hungry Man... can a software remove that which it cannot detect?

 

I suppose if they threw Clam AV in there it might get a few as well.

 

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that version 5 going final at the same time as the news of the sell out was pure coincidence. Whether there were any improvements to speak of is anyone's guess. There may have been some tweaks to get it ready for the new company. But anyway, the real time protection of SAS has never been considered strong by anyone that I know of. It's strength is in on demand scans and removal.

BTW- did all those people who had the lifetime licenses of the abandoned super adblocker get their promised version 5 SAS lifetime licenses?

 

Of course there is, since in your estimation, my comments are far from the truth. Prove that BS.
I just did, with plenty of reasons.
Mine are as well, along with other things.
Fine with me, it's ineffectual. Useless means 0 passes overall, unless there's something wrong with your definition.

True, tests are one thing, but what's really important is real-world efficiency. SAS is decent for that job.

 

Prevention and detection are two different things.

 

Nothing wrong with my definition, J_L.


Once again, with 7 or 8 failures out of each 10 MRG Flash Tests, SAS is useless to me.
You think it's decent.
I'm pretty much done discussing this software with you.

 

But I asked if it can remove that which it cannot detect.
Can SAS remove any of the malware that it failed to detect in the MRG Flash Tests?

 

No idea. I don't think this was about detection though was it? It was about infections.

 

Hungry, I don't know how else to ask this...

You said "for removal I've used it many times".

It has failed 70-80% of the MRG Flash Tests.

Can you use SAS to remove any of those failed infections from a machine?

 

Like I said, I have no idea. Not a dev and I don't use it.

And like I said, it's not necessarily that it didn't detect them it's that it could not stop the infection.

If something detects but doesn't manage to protect it could still possibly remove. If something doesn't detect and allows infection I don't see how it could remove it unless it uses heuristics.

 

My misunderstanding. I was under the impression that you used SAS when you said, "for removal I've used it many times".

Learned something here. On both counts.

Hmmm. Is there a way for us to know whether or not the softwares in the MRG Flash Tests detected the infections or not?

 

I haven't used SAS to remove malware from my own machine in a long time.

Not unless they tell us.

 

This is the way I see it... And, I'll base myself on MRG tests, which is what this thread is all about. Everything else would be speculation.

Interpreting MRG tests, SAS reveals itself ineffective blocking an infection. They don't mention which version, but I suppose it's the paid version to see if it's effective preventing the infection?

If we consider the tested version to be the paid version, then in my book SAS is 100% useless, because this wouldn't be something I'd pay for. Because, if we say SAS isn't ineffective, then what will that make of MBAM, for example? Considering that MBAM passed more tests than it failed, I'd say it's effective (again, I'm only interpreting MRG tests). Therefore, we can't say the same about SAS, can we?

Now, would you pay for SAS, due to its real-time protection, based on MRG tests?

 

I'll check with Sveta and see if there a way for his tests to show us whether or not the softwares in the MRG Flash Tests detected the infections that they failed to prevent.

 

Let's stop arguing and wait for more results!
I'm impatient

 

It's so obviously wrong that I'm having a hard time believing you. Tell me how actually detecting some malware is of no use. Then your definition applies to most, if not all, of the products.

I think it's decent in real life, learn to read better.

I'm so tired of repeating myself to some people who just don't get it.