Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by hayc59, Feb 8, 2017.
It was just updated so... outdated? It has a very nice icon for the system tray. What's not to like?
I use the free version, but like everyone else it only detects tracking cookies.
I just installed this for nostalgia's sake. The user interface looks nice and the scans are decent enough. I had to stop at its request for my email but I found I didn't have to input it after all, just clicked "next" or whatever. Found a bunch of cookies even though I thought I'd closed all the holes. It's not so so bad, is it? But people always say: others are better at malicious detections and I wouldn't trade my HitmanPro for it. Speaking of cookies, SAS runs circles around HMP, I think.
SUPERAntispyware v8.0.1030 Released (February 11, 2019)
SUPERAntispyware v8.0.1032 Released (March 18, 2019)
- Changelog for v8.0.1032 not available yet -
SUPERAntispyware v8.0.1034 Released (April 3, 2019)
SUPERAntispyware v8.0.1038 Released (April 9, 2019)
I find this quite insistantly intrusive and it can get a grip on your system, dig it's heals in and lock things when it comes to uninstall.
SUPERAntispyware v8.0.1040 Released (June 25, 2019)
How does this company stay in business?
Who uses this? It's fossilized!
I do, on demand on the Win 7. Great for finding and deleting cookies. It's about the only thing it's good for.
is it really that bad? I also use it on demand on win7. I just need to decide to get rid of it if it's that useless.
for cookies I use FF + various add-ons.
I have been reading about SAS a long time here at Wilders. As far as I have seen, down through the years, the posters who pan SAS have never cited any objective, statistically valid tests to support their negativism. I'm not saying these posters are correct or incorrect in demeaning SAS. Who knows? What I am saying is that they support their negativism (if at all) with little more than opinion & anecdotal blather.
Every single time here and at Malwaretips, that SAS is mentioned, people are quick to point out how bad it as and that it is only good at detecting tracking cookies. On the other hand, it is exceptionally rare for anyone to say anything positive about it. If SAS didn't have a bad detection rate, you would see people defending it, rather than constantly bashing it.
As a I've posted before, in my experience that SAS is terrible. When cleaning up customers computers, I stopped using it, as it was a waste of time, because it would rarely detect anything. When SAS was first released, it had excellent detection rates and it was a product I recommended. But it's been years since it has been any good.
Here are some reviews, which also mention the poor detection rates.
This is from the PCMag review.
Edit: The PCMag is review is five years old, but I can assure you that the detection rate has not improved since then.
I ran SAS right up until I stopped using Windows. Mainly to waste tracking cookies, which it is really good at. Plus, ten years ago, it found a trojan that Norton, MBAM and Spybot missed.
I remember when it detected itself as malware.
They all do that eventually. lol
I remember its bad detection rates. But I remember more the developer who came here on Wilders from time to time. I think he also had that SuperAdBlocker thing.
SAS was sold in 2011 and Nick left the company in 2012.
Main critiques of SAS: (1) SAS is not a full-on AV. (2) SAS has not been tested by a major testing lab. (3) Private tests (malware tips & techradar) indicate SAS is very weak. (4) PCMag says SAS is N.G.
My Comments: (1) There are several security apps that, like SAS, are designed to run as adjuncts to a full-on AV -- e.g., Zemana Anti-Malware. (2) There are several "upper-tier" security apps that have chosen not to be tested by security test labs -- e.g., Emsisoft. (3) The tiny "tests" reported by malware tips & techradar are statistically insignificant. (4) It is obvious that SAS has failed to meet a significant test criteria in that SAS has chosen NOT to advertise with PCMag.
However, based primarily on roger_m's expertise & well-thought-out comments, I would certainly NOT recommend SAS to my friends & family.
i think both Norton an Avast did that too
@bellgamin While SAS is not a full antivirus, alternatives like Malwarebytes, Zemana and HitmanPro have much better detection rates.
i wonder how their anti ransomware abilities are
It has no specific anti ransomware module or proactive protection. So if you have the Pro version it will only use its limited signatures to detect ransomware.
Separate names with a comma.