SuperAntiSpyware Pro question??

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by berryracer, Jul 19, 2011.

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

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    I've been using SuperAntiSpyware FTW for years now and I prefer it much more than Malwarebytes AntiMalware as it always detects more stuff and that includes the harmful tracking cookies that MBAM misses.

    But this thread isn't about which one of them is the best, I have a question actually.

    I have the Pro version of SuperAntiSpyware which sits there in the taskbar to monitor you live and prevent any infections. Well great, but everytime I run a scan in about a couple of hours, I notice that SAS has picked up a few more harmful cookies.

    Sm does it not work live to prevent those cookies from coming? Or maybe I understood the concept of live monitoring wrong? Maybe cookies must be downloaded inorder for the internet to work properly and the live monitoring is only for harmful programs or stuff like that?

    But then I have Eset Smart Security running as well.

    I am kinda confused, kindly shed some light on teh above

    kthxbye
     
  2. Duradel

    Duradel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Posts:
    363
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Tracking cookies are used by websites to monitor your movements online. Generally they are used for marketing purposes so that they know what ad's to target you with. They don't do anything malicious but are annoying.
     
  3. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    So if one has an antivirus running, why would he want to have SuperAntiSpyware Pro running alongside in the background too? That's my confusion to whether to keep SAS in the background or to limit myself to manual scans


    Isn't that the great feature about Pro?

    I bought the Pro version not coz I need it, just out of respect and support to the developer. But I would like to know if there is any benefit of running it in the background and on startup if I was using Eset Smart Security FTW
     
  4. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    I think SAS Pro is pretty light on resources, and having it run in real time doesn't affect performance, so having it run is a plus. It does pick up trojans that the AV could miss. I can testify to that. Then doing a scan if you suspect you're infected can save your bacon by putting the trojan in quarantine.
     
  5. enemyofarsenic

    enemyofarsenic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Posts:
    63
    It's more of like an add-on to your existing anti-virus. Provides another layer of security to your setup similar to malwarebytes pro.
     
  6. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    extra protection is always good to have:thumb:
     
  7. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    I believe SAS Pro works on-execution, meaning it scans every program you execute.
     
  8. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    thanks alot for the information guys!! U helped me clear all my doubts! Ill keep it in that case :D
     
  9. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    confusion always arises whether having an AV and Spyware on demand side by side provide more protection than just 1 alone, the short answer is NO! and i can hear cries of yes it does :cautious: However take this example, you have say for instance Avira on demand, which picks up a virus/ trojan or whatever, and quarentines it. You may think that your Antispyware will do the same thing, but in reality it cant! because your AV has already neutralized it, so running a scan with your Antispyware will find nothing, and it never will in this instance, and the same goes vice-versa should your AntiSpy intercept first, then of course your AV wont detect it either. The main argument here has always been "hey my antivirus didnt detect a virus, but my spyware did" of course not! why would it! and again vice-versa. Lets get to the main pont here, they cant both neutralize the same problem at the same time.
     
  10. SUPERAntiSpy

    SUPERAntiSpy Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,088
    Multiple layers of protection is the key today. No single product can catch everything on a given day.
     
  11. SUPERAntiSpy

    SUPERAntiSpy Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,088
    The problem comes when your AV misses the threat - if you don't have a real-time secondary solution running, then you will have a higher chance of getting infected.
     
  12. SUPERAntiSpy

    SUPERAntiSpy Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,088
    That is correct.
     
  13. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    So, more specifically to your main point, DVD+R, I don't think anyone's hoping to catch the same malware twice:

    Say your AV misses 1 out of 100 threats (that the AntiSpy catches) and let's say your AntiSpy misses another 1 out of another 100 threats (that the AV catches).

    Result, the miss rate for the combination of AV and AntiSpy (probability of both missing at same time) is 1/100 X 1/100 = 1/10,000, which is the main point I believe most are getting at when we talk about the benefits of multiple protection layers. In this example, you theoretically have twice the software but only 1% of the vulnerability (probability of a miss) you would have with only one software. Key is that combined independent probabilities of failure are MULTIPLIED, not simply added or, worse, nullifying each other.

    EDIT: Grammar annoyance and parenthetical addition to "Result,..."
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  14. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    I agree, I was just posing an example as to why once one has dealt with the threat the other wont detect it
     
  15. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes

    The point I'm focusing on here is quite likely one or the other detects and cleans i.e A detects B and C detects D etc..etc.. or A might detect B & D therefore C detects nothing. I'm not saying dont use both, however I am interested as to why some people focus on paranoia, and have up to 5 security products running at the same time, all this does is slow down your PC
     
  16. AssassinKID

    AssassinKID Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    27
    Location:
    Australia
    Also, SAS Pro has settings that it will only scan limited types of files, such as 4MB or below and so on if I remember correctly.
     
  17. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Yeah, 5 security products overlapping seems excessive. If they do different things that may not be too bad but I agree that, whatever you use, noticeably slowing down your PC is NOT acceptable.
     
  18. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Are you guys talking about me? No noticeable slowdowns or incompatibilities here. Hardware is pretty cheap as well. System is quite tweaked though. I have no comments on the opinion of paranoia.
     
  19. Spooony

    Spooony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Posts:
    514
    MALWAREBYTES PRO strength is script malware andwebsite blocking
     
  20. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I know of a couple of cases where the person had a top tier AV that was up to date, yet became infected with a rogue. Not only did the AV not prevent the rogue, but it could not identify and remove the rogue.

    In both cases MBAM identified and removed the rogue with a quick scan. If you think that the AV catches all harmful malware you are just "whistling Dixie."


    SAS and/or MBAM are important tools in your security.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  21. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Certainly not I, especially if it doesn't slow you down.:)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.