MRG Flash Tests 2011

Then stop. It's okay that we don't see eye to eye.
It takes all kinds in here, J_L.
Let's just remember to keep it friendly.
It's only software, man.

 

I have made a mistake when I upgrade to the pro version and while it has not seen that feature work as should be , especially MRG tests. This feature is more fail than pass.
I have found SAS only effective removing / get rid of cookies,correct me if wrong.

 

On clean computers, all security software are only effective at removing cookies, and maybe some downloads.

 

As J_L said, are you trying to remove anything else? Do you think you're infected?

If not, don't expect it to just make malware up. Any AV will probably give the same results...

 

@ J_L & Hungry
I should not rush to upgrade to the pro version since I have never been infected nearly 2 years

Now,using SAS only on-demand on both machine while I have Lifetime license

 

So, using your own words, then this former rogue antimalware application is a great addition to an arsenal of tools? And, only because it's able to detect a few things?

The latest version is from 2008 (according to Softpedia)... but, I'm just wondering if you'd think the same about this tool. Imagine we were in 2008... Would you recommend StopSign to anyone? Once you think about that, would you recommend SAS to anyone?

 

Hit point is that while it's not (based on these tests) that effective it is not useless. Useless implies that there's no way you could ever find something for it to do, for it to be useful. The fact that it detected even one malicious program proves that it's not useless.

It's not about saying it's the best or recommending it, it's about saying that because a product did poorly on a test it doesn't mean it's useless. Especially when it didn't fail literally every test.

 

Seriously? So, SAS is as useful as StopSign? StopSign is as useful as Kaspersky/other top rated product? I suppose it makes sense, if we consider that antimalware apps have lost the game long time ago...

I also imagine that Spybot is as useful as any other antimalware app. It just doesn't detect as much as we'd like, right? Oh.. wait... but Spybot is useful... You know why? It has immunizations. SAS lacks them.

 

Saying that it isn't 100% worthless does not mean it's a great product. All J_L is saying is that the program is by definition not useless because the tests show that it can have a use - removing whatever it is it removed.

Yes, it's useful. AS useful as other products? Debatable, and based on these tests I'd say no. But really I think J_L just wanted it clear that a product is not useless when it doesn't fail every test.

 

Finally, you got to somewhere. This is an MRG Flash Tests thread, and therefore it makes sense we discuss the usefulness of the products, based on this test. Therefore, SAS is not useful, when compared with all the others.

Saying that SAS is useful because in real life it will detect something, would be the same as saying that other top products, tested by other organizations as well, are not useful because at some point they will fail. It's more than obvious that they will fail at some point. The same way SAS may detect something others didn't at some point. But, this is not the point I was trying to make in this thread.

 

Not useful =/= useless. That's all J_L was saying.

 

Something that isn't useful (something not useful) by definition isn't ... well, useful. Therefore, it's useless. No?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/useful
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/useless

-edit-

OK. You folks seem to dislike the word useless. How about weak, which you'll find as one of the meanings in one of those links? Is it OK to call it weak, then?

 

Nope.

It's really semantics but just because you don't find something useful does not mean it is entirely useless.

 

Let's call it SuperDiskSpaceWaster - for that purpose it can be useful

 

Well, let's not be unfair either... According to user abu shofwan it seems to be effective at detecting tracking cookies.

 

It would be nice if this endless discussion on SAS could be stopped before the thread gets locked..
Based on test results and own experience people have formed their own opinion about SAS and their opinions have been explained in this thread and others as well, there's no point in trying the convince people with a different opinion as it doesn't work that way as has been proved in this thread and others.

 

Well, i have seen a friend clean PC's with SAS that couldn't be taken care of with regular AV's (KIS, NOD and BD)

 

It is good at cleaning, but the real-time protection is not that good. By the way, they have stopped selling lifetime subscriptions.

Best Regards,
Ziaul

 

Although Hungry Man made sufficient answers in my absence, I've got to say you were seriously misinterpreting me. SAS is more useful than StopSign, simply because of it's detection rate and legitimate cleanliness. Once again, no.

It is useful, but to a lesser degree relevant to its detection rate. Immunization, of course, adds to that.

One thing I have to make perfectly clear. Stating something like SAS is useless without supporting evidence is absolutely worthless. The tests don't support that, nor real world experiences, nor valid dictionaries.

 

Wow! DefenseWall rocks!

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/malware-tests/flash-test-results/

 

Yeah, DefenseWall always gets a perfect score haha

 

Whatever happened to Hitman Pro or Zemana AntiMalware?

 

Emsisoft 76(Tested) 70(Passed) 4(Failed)

76-(70+4)=2
Where is 2 sample?

 

Lol they even cant do simple mathematics how can we trust there result

 

Well, let's say it this way, I've seem far more tests revealing SAS not being effective, and have seen many tests revealing MBAM being effective.

And, don't take this wrong, I'm looking at it from the perspective of real-time protection. I believe the tested product was the paid version, correct? Its real-time protection seems to be very poor, judging by what tests reveal and by what users of the application even say. The tests don't say the same about MBAM, at all. Quite the contrary.

Therefore, I mentioned that I'd never buy SAS to provide me real-time protection.

I never mentioned its protection/detection is null, I mentioned useless, when compared to others. There's a huge difference. One thing is being null, another thing is being useless.

Interesting that you got such high praise for SAS, yet it doesn't figure of your security setup. Not even as an on-demand scanner, and you got quite a few for what it seems. If SAS is that great why aren't you using it? Not much faith in it?

-edit-

You do seem to be using Malwarebytes Anti-Malware to help you protect in real-time, though. Interesting...