Why do people recommend MBAM over SAS?

Have you demonstrated being able to download the portable version lately? The portable download link from their site currently just downloads the installer/trial version.

 

worked fine for me a couple days ago, i will try again when i go home in the evening

edit- NOOOOOO! went on their website and it seems they have removed the portable version!! they have made it a paid only feature

 

It's still advertised as free. Maybe they'll offer one of those famous $9.95 today only promos.

 

the portable no install version is not advertised as free

description for SAS portable paid technicians version;
The SUPERAntiSpyware Portable Scanner Technicians Edition is an invaluable tool in the fight against malware. The scanner does not require Internet access and can be run from a USB drive or CD. The scanner does not need to be uninstalled and leaves nothing installed on the system.

description for SAS portable free personal edition;
The SUPERAntiSpyware Portable Scanner Personal Edition is a great Freeware alternative for those that want to scan and remove threats from their computer when malware may be blocking the installation of SUPERAntiSpyware Free Edition or other security software. The program installs easily and is available to scan your computer at anytime!

 

A portable program that installs. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

no your not, but i think they are lol. i have never seen such a misleading description of a program in my life, well apart from rogue-ware. either this is a genuine mistake by their web editor or they have actually lost the plot

 

ROFLMAO

 

more info here http://forums.superantispyware.com/index.php?/topic/6822-sas-portable-not-portable/

seems as though we are not the only ones who are confused

 

SAS has detected like 3 times browser hijackers that HMP, Mbam and even EAM did not! so its good but imho its mostly good only with this kind of malware (from my experience) but for other types of malware its behind MBAM/HMP generally.

 

I am a Kaspersky Internet Security user but you cannot compare Kaspersky Internet Security to MBAM or SAS!

1) They are designed to catch diff. things. Kaspersky Internet Security has one of the best Firewalls

2) Correct me if i'm wrong, but these programs are best known to detect malware, trojans, etc. not website links that are harmful or other threats. In-fact, MBAM does state on their forums that MBAM is not a replacement for an Antivirus so please make sure you have a good Antivirus. and SAS should be no different than MBAM as they are both anti-malware programs not a firewall or an Anti-Virus

 

Well, this one completely escaped me while i was off the net for so long. Seems SAS to my memory was top honcho in antispyware scanners before then MBAM started up and from developments & persistent ambition grew rapidly to overtake SAS.
What troubles me is the confusion over the so-called Portable SAS, they should just go ahead and release a purely Portable SAS in that they offer a free installed version anyway.

 

Where did i compare KIS with SAS, what are you talking about dude, or even when did i said MBAM/SAS can replace antivirus? are you sure your not thinking of someone else?

I'm perfectly aware that KIS has great firewall and HIPS.

 

they do offer a puerly portable SAS, you just need to pay for it now. thats not the where the confusion is, its their product so they can charge what they want.

the actual confusion is that the free 'portable' version is not actually portable, you have to install it. to me that's classed as lying or at best classed as stupid. see attached pic

 

Point accepted. Of course i should have added they should just go ahead an release a "free" portable version, not pay, but then every vendor have their models for marketing efficiency they feel needs to be addressed. Maybe they have to sell it, we simply do not know, but it does seem to have created something of a small stir for discussion if not frustration for some.

After all, take Emsi EmergencyKit for an example. It "IS" portable for all intensive purposes and it is still 100% "Free" with updates included, (running one now) LoL

Emsi has been at AntiMalware stretching back to Windows 98 if memory serves, so they have an established and rock solid reputation for standing the test of time & quality, perhaps that's the difference we're experiencing as opposed to SAS.

Who's to say.

 

all sas does is sit around eating ram and high disc space as for a antispyware, cleaning delicious cookies.....mbam is the real deal.....

 

the free portable version of SAS was actually very useful. as you could run it from a boot disk. not so with their new meaning of 'portable'

i now use McAfee Stinger instead, so far so good

 

+1......

 

No single product can catch everything - that's why multiple products are needed and exist in the industry!

 

this is very true

 

An important point that simply cannot be reminded about or overlooked enough!
Some who are as notorious about protection as the malware makers are in crafting & releasing their ever newer versions of crap/damageware, i can't stress enough how vital it is to cover ALL the vectors of potential trouble points, and for me Leading AV's with all their best integrated fashion tools simply do not add up to the best overall protection coverage in my book.

SAS has for many including myself been very proficient at surfacing hidden malware & their traces well enough to become a mainstay, in my case On-Demand Only which doesn't hamper system performance i can notice. HIPS covers the largest potentional interruption actions for me and SAS performs the excellent mop up duties by virtue of it's scanning engine.
I don't use MBAM myself, at least not yet, because it's swissarmy driver conflicted too many times with other security progs drivers and i don't experience any issues with SAS like that.

 

I agree and that is why I will continue to use it. It works well for me, on my XP system. but...

I run this on demand, and sometimes I run a quick scan.

However, I still get these detections which I have previously posted in other threads about, and e-mailed Nick directly, also.

This is my only bugbear, regarding SAS, and I have since learned to disregard the determination.

 

SAS doesn't alert on it but some other security apps have raised questions for me on certain items somewhat similar to your screenshot. One in particular i'll mention is the Antiviral Toolkit AVZ

Once i learned why, it became completely acceptable as to why it raised a red flag. I use an old favorite named ScriptTrap that passes the execution of .reg & .vbs files through it's program first in order to prevent potential unwanted forced code execution from these extensions. With the option of a WhiteList, you are free to OK a safe script file launch you know is normal.

AVZ shows "Abnormal REG file association" which simply means the normal association of my .REG files are not opened with the default editor/launcher Regedit but passed thru ScriptTrap first. I seen this precaution raised many times before in Anti-Malware scanners which for certain systems are a False Positive for the user, but a true red flag marker for the AS scanner.

 

Warning. There are attempts at humour interspersed with attempts at sounding knowledgeable in the following
paragraphs and punctuation -



SAS


GOOD POINTS:

1: Free version available.
2: Fast scanning.
3: Great for cleaning an already infected system.
4: Useful as a third-opinion on demand scanner and will indeed pick up things
that many other top programs miss.
5: It fairs well in the compatibility stakes.


BAD POINTS:

1: Confusing configuration.
2: Anecdotal evidence of reportings in the wild of 'real-time' nasties seem to be rarer than
sightings of the Loch Ness monster. Though lots of people know someone who knows someone...
Though when pressed to provide further evidence, it turns out not to be Nessy at all.
3: The constant 9.99 today only offer lends it an air of desperation.
4: It's browser home page hi-jack detection is Internet Explorer only.
5: The graphic design on the gui makes some people think it looks like scamware or worse.



MalwareBytes Anti-Malware


GOOD POINTS:

1: Effective real time blocking at both malware and domain level.
2: Very effective at cleaning a badly infected system.
3: Blurs the line between Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware.
4: Very compatible with the majority of other A/V and A/M.
5: Free version available that is more than just 'bait' (not implying here, that SAS is).


BAD POINTS:

1: It's name is a bit of a mouthful - maybe that is the idea - clever subliminal advertising ;-).
2: Some people report a lot of false positives for bad sites.
3: Can give a false sense of security, because a lot of serious virus writers purposefully engineer their
malware to bypass Malwarebytes leaving you open to further comprimising 'nasties' that can really do some
damage. To be fair this is not Malwarebytes' fault.
4: I personally have had configuration problems with it not starting at runtime on my computer. But this does
not seem to be a common problem as far as I can see.
5: Seems to have very slow startup time when just trying to do a quick 'shell' scan from the right-click menu
for the odd file or folder.


This is all in mho, of course. I bought both of them and don't regret either. If someone asked me which
one to get if they were going to pay for just one - I would point them to my little un-scientific list.
I don't see why SAS can not improve on it's strengths.

Now back to work. I paid 9.99 for that!

(Even I get lucky sometimes)




In all seriousness, I wouldn't be without SAS, it HAS found some nasty things that NOTHING else has picked up on.
And I have no 'beef' with Mr. SAS himself, though he probably has a bit of one with me now ;-)
And for the record, I bought two licenses - one for family also.

And what would make me really happy is if somebody actually did something about some of the points above, that
could have something quite easily done about them (i.e. Graphic Design).

 

The bottom line on all this, is USE BOTH PRODUCTS! Each of our products are tried and true and you should use both to have multiple layers of protection!

 

agree with Nick Skrepetos