Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Anti Spyware Comparisons


Recommended Posts

Having read a few reviews regarding anti-spyware I've gotten a little confused.

At the moment I'm using SuperAntiSpyware, Malwarebytes and Spybot S&D.

I run each of these weekly and in full scan mode, making sure they are all up to date.

I don't run them live or at start up on my PC's but any time I work on anyone's else PC I ensure at least SAS runs at start up.

I noticed in a thread a few weeks ago someone mentioned that Spybot S&D was a waste of time after the first run, but never went on to explain why.

So the question is do I really need all 3?

What merits does each one have?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spybot is to outdated to be effective against malware these days.

 

 

Def agree with this. never any software updates. Last major one was that terrible tea timer.

 

Malware bytes as roschach said is enough. It's not going to harm you having more, other then take up memory.

 

I'v never bothered with real time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A straight forward and simple answer at last, time to remove some stuff me thinks ;)

 

Next question, I've always ran SAS and MBAM in full deep scan mode as opposed to quick scan.

Apart from the time factor, which isn't a problem, what is the real difference. I've always thought doing the full scan would reveal more if there was anything hiding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine quick scan checks the most likely place where malware would hide. Where as deep scan checks the whole computer or which ever directorys you choose it to look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine quick scan checks the most likely place where malware would hide. Where as deep scan checks the whole computer or which ever directorys you choose it to look.

That's what I thought. But if you look at the description in MBAM under 'Perform Quick Scan' it also suggests it's only scanning for the most common types of malware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Next question, I've always ran SAS and MBAM in full deep scan mode as opposed to quick scan.

Apart from the time factor, which isn't a problem, what is the real difference. I've always thought doing the full scan would reveal more if there was anything hiding.

It all depends on how often you run them.

For example, quick scan weekly, and full scan monthly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spybot is to outdated to be effective against malware these days.

 

Def agree with this. never any software updates. Last major one was that terrible tea timer.

 

Spybot has regular protection file updates and is only effective if you download them regular, then install them though the immunise option. Bells and whistles are usually for show only so the fact that it does not constantly update its main program is not that big an issue, it does what it does. Just because it has been around a while hardly makes it obsolete or nobody would use programs of any kind older than a few months.

 

AVG has been around a long time and have various updates for their main program. AVG is very good software but it also screws up as some people found out after an update a year or two ago. They had installed a new version available at that time but had not checked the options or mod changes.

When they scanned and it came back with false positives they just clicked without looking at the files in question. This resulted in AVG removing major OP files and their PC was kaput. They blame AVG but I say it is the operators fault for not paying attention. The newest version is not always the best. AVG is good but there are lots of options so it is not easy for a novice to use unlike say Avira Anti Vir that has a much simpler set of options.

 

I have never heard of MBAM but I would like to see it. Where can I find the correct site for MBAM please ?

 

One good anti virus and one good anti spy/mal program is all you need. Belt & Braces do no harm. The ideal is to have a good cross search between your programs so that if one misses something the other will pick it up and warn you. Don’t trust just one program but try to keep it to a reasonable minimum.

 

With scans it has more to do with what you use your PC for and if you need that memory for more important things.

If you are in safe Internet territory then a light - medium scan is ok but if you have been surfing in alien space then medium - deep paranoia scan is better.

I like paranoia scans because they give better reports. I find it does not take that long and I only do scans when appropriate, not when I want to run apps. Do your scan in emergencies but try to keep it to times when you are doing some other non-PC project.

 

Note of caution : Avira Anti Vir has a phoney sight so be sure if you are downloading it that you are at the real Avira Anti Vir site

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have never heard of malware bytes? :S (MBAM)

 

Quick scan vs full scan

 

"All it does is scan more locations on the hard drive(s), thus allowing it to pick up traces it might have otherwise missed, but again, even that's rare because the quick scan is designed to look in all the places malware likes to hide."

 

Seems like full scan is pretty pointless according to the malwarebytes team

 

 

 

http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.p...c=10405&hl=

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quick scan vs full scan

 

"All it does is scan more locations on the hard drive(s), thus allowing it to pick up traces it might have otherwise missed, but again, even that's rare because the quick scan is designed to look in all the places malware likes to hide."

 

Seems like full scan is pretty pointless according to the malwarebytes team

It would be nice if they would change the text on their GUI then. To say that a quick scan only (and I quote) "scans for the most common types of malware" is misleading if it's actually using the full set of definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it could be worded better also marmite.

 

I dont quite agree with there 99.9% of malware will be found on quick scan.

 

I deep scan once a month and a good few times it has picked up stuff QS has not.

 

End of the day, it's a great bit of kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
I have never heard of MBAM but I would like to see it. Where can I find the correct site for MBAM please ?

When discussing anti-malware you'll often see us mention MBAM on this forum, and many others as well - it's that good!

 

Spybot-S&D and Ad-Aware simply aren't needed anymore with MBAM or SAS installed!

 

MBAM: http://www.malwarebytes.org/

SAS: http://www.superantispyware.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites
When discussing anti-malware you'll often see us mention MBAM on this forum, and many others as well - it's that good!

 

Spybot-S&D and Ad-Aware simply aren't needed anymore with MBAM or SAS installed!

 

MBAM: http://www.malwarebytes.org/

SAS: http://www.superantispyware.com/

 

Hi Andavari

 

 

MBAM and SAS in their free versions are not with real protection , is`nt it a disadvantage ? is on demand scan sufficient?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andavari very much appreciated.

 

The only problem with malware is that the more clever jerk will be able to dodge some of these scans because they rename the file on the sly so that a scan misses it but that is rare granted.

I will certainly look to add one or both of these progs just for belt and braces sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
is on demand scan sufficient?

No. Real-time protection will protect you from opening a virus-infected file before it infects your computer.

 

On-demand scanning is only a quick checkup to see if your real-time scanner missed something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with malware is that the more clever jerk will be able to dodge some of these scans because they rename the file on the sly so that a scan misses it but that is rare granted.

I would have thought that the name of a file alone is rarely important; it's the signature of the file content that will be recognised as malicious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have thought that the name of a file alone is rarely important; it's the signature of the file content that will be recognised as malicious.

 

Yes that also but many software packages have checklists and the infiltrator file knows to avoid these lists that is what I was referring to at the time. They have the same old crap in the file the only difference is that the file is a smart file that is aware of protection software thus avoids detection.

 

It is a pain but sadly there are many malicious jerks out there with no honour what so ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
MBAM and SAS in their free versions are not with real protection , is`nt it a disadvantage ? is on demand scan sufficient?

Although the free verions don't have real-time protection I myself don't think it's an issue, especially if you don't browse with Internet Explorer and don't visit known nefarious sites then it's really easy to not get infected. Reason being you have an antivirus installed with real-time protection, and you can use MBAM and/or SAS to immediately scan any newly downloaded files before running them, and performing a quick scan every now and then should suffice.

 

This has worked for me for years, however since everyone uses their computer differently as in the sites they visit, etc., real-time protection may or may not be needed.

 

Take any anti-malware recommendations on this forum from any non spyware mods and members with a grain of salt though!!! If you want an absolute authoritative view on rather a paid MBAM or SAS is actually needed wait to see if Rorschach112 replies, or ask him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have some form of real-time protection running on your PC, whether that is from your anti-virus or MBAM. I personally recommend users run SpywareGuard or TeaTimer, they are by far the best real-time protection you can get, and free, and far less of a resource hog than using an anti-virus for real-time protection.

 

 

Generally you only want one form of real-time protection running on a machine, more than one can cause issues, even if its from an anti-virus and an anti-spyware program. This is one area where more is definitely not better.

 

 

Hope that helps a bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have some form of real-time protection running on your PC, whether that is from your anti-virus or MBAM. I personally recommend users run SpywareGuard or TeaTimer, they are by far the best real-time protection you can get, and free, and far less of a resource hog than using an anti-virus for real-time protection.

 

 

Generally you only want one form of real-time protection running on a machine, more than one can cause issues, even if its from an anti-virus and an anti-spyware program. This is one area where more is definitely not better.

 

 

Hope that helps a bit

I agree, a HIPS is a great way for more technical people to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have some form of real-time protection running on your PC, whether that is from your anti-virus or MBAM. I personally recommend users run SpywareGuard or TeaTimer, they are by far the best real-time protection you can get, and free, and far less of a resource hog than using an anti-virus for real-time protection.

I've considered using SpywareGuard, but after reading it's description, it sounds like most of it's features are geared to provide protection for Internet Explorer. Is there any point in using SG if your sole browser is Opera?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have some form of real-time protection running on your PC, whether that is from your anti-virus or MBAM. I personally recommend users run SpywareGuard or TeaTimer, they are by far the best real-time protection you can get, and free, and far less of a resource hog than using an anti-virus for real-time protection.

 

 

Generally you only want one form of real-time protection running on a machine, more than one can cause issues, even if its from an anti-virus and an anti-spyware program. This is one area where more is definitely not better.

 

 

Hope that helps a bit

'Rorschach112' please note: 1.SpywareGuard version was not updated since March 16, 2006

 

2.TeaTimer`s version was not updated since August 03, 2005 .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why SpywareGuard hasn't been updated:

 

2. Why is the most recent database update for SpywareGuard dated 2004?

Some of SpywareGuard's strongest protection is its Browser Hijacking Protection, which is a behavior-based defense. It doesn't need any sort of definition updates, and is still as effective (and powerful) as it was on the day of release.

 

The current real-time protection built into SpywareGuard 2.2, which does use the database updates, has been extended about as much as is possible. This doesn't mean that the current real-time scanning is ineffective - rather that it is limited to detecting most variants of the families of items contained in its last published database.

 

As for TeaTimer, I think its also behavior based, so it doesn't need to have updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...