SUPERAntiSpyware 5 Official Release!

thanks Escalader

 

Couldn't have said it better .

 

Any idea of the best settings of it and i have a software review of it

http://www.youtube.com/languy99#p/u/0/xr1_NH3tMIs

 

Well said....
My norton av 2011 ,and malwarebytes pro fails to detect a DHL doc(.exe) that came by email today.Superantispyware detects it (as do a few other avs).As you say...nothing is 100% and layered protection is the way to go.I also like the fact that your program is very light (realtime) on my system ...which means as much to me as the protection it offers.Keep up the good work .
ellison

 

All versions of SUPERAntiSpyware scanned FAT32 drives.

 

Opinion is great but please dont delude Nick into thinking everything is even close to OK with SAS realtime.

Put it another way a paper chastity belt is very light in the weight department for a young medieval maiden to wear but as far as the effectiveness of protecting her virtues goes...

 

It is incredibly light. 5MB of RAM compared to Malwarebytes' 60-80MB of RAM. Haven't had a chance to look at IO/ CPU obviously.

 

I think I am entitled to my opinion considering I have a licence for both SAS and MBAM pro versions,and have run both ,and again Ill say that SAS runs much lighter real-time on my system ( Windows7 64 bit 4 gig of ram)than MBAM.If I had relied on just MBAM or NAV this morning ,I would have been infected.Lucky for me I had SAS running realtime.The only delusion I see here is from those who would rely upon one product and poo poo the rest
ellison

 

Let's also not delude forum readers into thinking your words are more than opinion as well - I do this for a living and have dealt with literally millions of infected samples so my words are based in reality and empirical (real) data - if you don't want to use our product then don't - but the continual attempted discrediting is not benefiting the thread or real users.

Bottom line is that having SUPERAntiSpyware as a layer of defense is better than not having it and that is a point you can't deny One should not rely on any single product for protection - the same reason police forces have more than one person - no one can do it alone!

 

So now you're saying SAS is better than nothing. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.

 

No - I am saying we a one of several layers of protection in the fight against malware!

 

I agree. SAS seems so damn light I can't see why it's getting such hate based on so few reviews.

 

Indeed, i have started to use Pro version on half of my comps. Im not dissapointed with version 5. It's light, easy on I/O as well

 

Look up Page42, et al - same guys - same comments in every SUPERAntiSpyware thread for 7 years - they don't use the product and should just stay out of the threads as they provide zero benefit - meaning they are there for one reason only - to put the product down - that's not what this thread is about - its about announcing 5.0!

We work hard on our software for our users - we always strive to do better - I have no problem improving our software and will always do so!

 

well then i guess it should simply be closed since its been announced. i guess discussion isn't part of what the forum is for

but i agree with the others, yes SAS will on occasion detect things that others miss, but when i see a pattern of consistent failure with a particular product, test after test, i feel its quite justified to criticize it. When it comes to the quality of protection, other products have proven themselves much better on a consistent basis.

 

What we see is that we detect millions of items per year - so a few tests saying we missed some items does not show the benefits of our product only the samples we miss - but that's not the full story - that's why I educate as to what we do and how we do help and provide a huge benefit just like MBAM, AVG, etc

 

Buddy, SuperAntiSpyware by far is the best, for get about resource usage (which is damn great), it has found the most malware / crap out of all the other alternative programs available.

When Malwarebytes Anti-Malware would say there is nothing harmful on my system, if I scan with SAS, it would bind like 20-30 harmful cookies which pose a risk in identity theft, info leakage, ads, etc.

So there is no dispute here that SAS is the best.

I am not related to the producer or anything, simply been using this product for 2 years and along with Eset Smart Security, it provides me with superior protection!

Just out of respect to him, I bought the Pro version!

 

Well, I've been a member here for 4 years, not 7, and if anyone actually cared to "look up Page42" as you suggest, and then look up all the SAS threads, you will see that many, many, many SAS threads go by without any appearance from me. I hold a lifetime license to this product, and I don't like the way you handle your business, whether it's with version 4 or version 5. Maybe it will change, and for that reason alone, I keep an eye on your threads, and I can participate in any one of them. My comments are about the software... until you start throwing personal insults around. Then you've opened a can of worms.

What do you do with the samples that your software misses in the MRG Flash Tests?
Do you get them and add them to your database?
Is version 5 now going to be tested in MRG Flash Tests going forward?

 

Well it beat microsoft security essentials in the latest overall results for MRG flash tests
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/malware-tests/flash-test-results/
I guess it must currently be better then ,as the tests there prove it?.

 

I have couple of license for the pro version as well which I let catch the cookies when I have the mood to hunt for cookies to feed my appetite.
What is unacceptable to me is when ppl start labeling others just because they cant handle the criticism.That should not be tolerated in a forum like this IMO. why cant we have a better outcome of the products performance due to the criticism it's facing?

 

ot posts removed. Stay civil and on subject or stay out. Thanks

 

If a user frequented malc0de every hour and tested the malware there id be very surprised if their favourite av had a 100% detection of it, so I fail to see the big hangup over these tests.SAS is just adding to a layered protection.Its never pretended to be anything else.

 

I have used SAS Pro for quite a few years and installed it on my Daughters computer as well. I remember the day my GrandDaughter was infected with 46 instances of the "Windows police pro" trojan and SAS saved my bacon. Using SAS and MBAM is a good combination.

 

Identity theft oh really

ML you really do need to ask yourself if tracking cookies are capable of such deeds why then does SAS only detect them with an on demand scan and not prevent them from being stored on your computer in the first place.

Lets just say a user might only scan once a week(not uncommon practice).

A tracking cookie could sit there all week storing data.

What do you think Nick about potential identity theft from tracking cookies and why if they are any kind of security/privacy risk do you let them onto a computer that your application is allegedly protecting ?

The cynic in me says only 2 potential reasons exist.
They constitute no risk/harm and are a waste of developers resources to block.

Or you need them to be there on a computer inorder to detect them...give your users that warm fuzzy glow about your application doing something good

 

You are welcome.