Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Boca Raton, FLorida
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Exclamation SUPERAntiSpyware

    In his most recent column Fred stated:The orphaned Registry entries made me suspicious of SUPERAntiSpyware. If the fact that software leaves orphan entries in the Registry the Fred must be suspicious of nearly all software. As someone, who as a software reviewer, downloads and installs approximately 500 to 1,000 programs a year, there are very, very few programs that do not leave a few orphaned entries in the Registry. In fact, many of those entries are created by Windows and not the program itself. I have been using SUPERAntiSpyware for a number of years and have found it to be safe and thorough. In fact, it and Malwarebyte are my "go to" tools when I think I may have malware. I think Fred's casual maligning of the software as "suspicious" is unfair and irresponsible. And no, I do not work for SUPERAntiSpyware.

  2. #2
    Lounge VIP bobprimak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hinsdale, IL, USA
    Posts
    2,483
    Thanks
    176
    Thanked 152 Times in 129 Posts
    SAS has slipped considerably in the past few years. This has been established by independent testing organizations in a number of unbiased trials. Such slippage is often based on such factors as not completely removing Registry entries.

    These are not just any random Registry entries. They are the stuff of which self-healing "Frankenware" attacks are made. These little monsters regrow sometimes from just two Registry entries, and redownload the rest of the original malware, plus all of their nasty little friends.

    SAS used to be very thorough at removing every trace of malware. This is why it was called an anti-Spyware app, not an anti-Virus app. AV usually attacks the main Executables and leaves the rest of the residues (including Registry entries) intact, assuming them to be inactive without something to execute them. This assumption was just fine in the 1990s, but today's malware is much more sophisticated.

    SAS came from the other camp. It is derived from anti-Spyware apps, which seek to remove every trace of every Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP). Malwarebytes does this job admirably well, considering it is free for personal use. But SAS has been slipping, and I would no longer recommend its use without at least one (preferably two or three) additional scanners.

    Combined with Malwarebytes and MSE, SAS has kept my Windows XP laptop (which also has the free Comodo Personal Firewall and Comodo DNS Service) reasonably safe for over four years now. But recently, SAS has been missing items which Malwarebytes has been catching. Both SAS and MBAM have caught items not identified in even the Full System Scans of MSE-4.

    So, Malwarebytes seems to be on top of things pretty much. (I am not suggesting MBAM is perfect!) SAS is a bit behind the times. And MSE is pitiful, having no recent scanning engine upgrades and not catching as many PUPs as other free AV/AS apps in the first place. In Windows XP, these differences are significant. In Win 7 and Win 8, I hardly think it makes much difference which AV/AS products one chooses (as long as you have something active and at least one second-chance scanner in use), as the Win 7/8 firewall is better than in Win XP. Still, as soon as Avast got its act together for Win 8, I switched from Windows Defender (MSE) to Avast based partly on MSE's recent slippage in independent tests.

    And if SAS slips much further, I may abandon it as well.
    Last edited by bobprimak; 2013-05-10 at 16:47.
    -- Bob Primak --

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,756
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 653 Times in 576 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bobprimak View Post
    SAS has slipped considerably in the past few years. This has been established by independent testing organizations in a number of unbiased trials. Such slippage is often based on such factors as not completely removing Registry entries.

    These are not just any random Registry entries. They are the stuff of which self-healing "Frankenware" attacks are made. These little monsters regrow sometimes from just two Registry entries, and redownload the rest of the original malware, plus all of their nasty little friends.
    Fred's comment quoted here was related to its own registry entries left behind by installing and uninstalling SUPERAntiSpyware, not any related directly to malware.

    Bruce

  4. #4
    Lounge VIP bobprimak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hinsdale, IL, USA
    Posts
    2,483
    Thanks
    176
    Thanked 152 Times in 129 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceR View Post
    Fred's comment quoted here was related to its own registry entries left behind by installing and uninstalling SUPERAntiSpyware, not any related directly to malware.

    Bruce
    I'm sorry if I didn't specify that my comment was related to only a small portion of actingmark's comment directly above my comment. I got focused on the mention of Registry Entries, which in the case of malware removal, SAS has recently been failing to completely remove in independent lab tests. Comparisons have been made to other AV/AS products, and SAS is indeed slipping.

    (actingmark) characterized SAS as "Safe and Thorough". This is not as true now as it used to be. Hence my remarks about SAS not being as effective as in the past. In previous columns, I believe Fred Langa has also raised the effectiveness issue about SAS. I hope in future versions, SAS can regain its previous excellent reputation for complete spyware removal.

    Elsewhere in a more recent Windows Secrets column, Fred Langa again attacked SAS for not completely uninstalling. My reply may be found there:

    http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sho...SB-flash-drive

    The gist of my response to this Red Herring echoes actingmark. NEARLY ALL Windows programs incompletely uninstall. That's why we in the Lounge recommend Revo Uninstaller and CCleaner so often. I've seen a lot worse uninstallers than the one used by SAS. SAS does offer a full-scale Removal Tool at their website, BTW.

    Glad you brought the focus back to the overstatement on Fred's part regarding SAS not completely uninstalling, BruceR.
    Last edited by bobprimak; 2013-05-10 at 18:52.
    -- Bob Primak --

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •