Comparability of Spyware systems

[Angelo Faria]

I have recently installed Microsoft's Spyware Beta (SPB)
system and tested it by running simultenously AD-Aware
Personal, Trend Micro (house Call) and Trend Micor
Spyware. SPB came of worst, showing no threats when each
of the two others showed four threats with URL's: from
process: Malaware (Clickspring)and from Data Miners:
Atwola.com; live 365.com; Clickability.com. I also
maintain current Spybot and SpyBlaster.

Comments invited from others about comparable performance
and how to protect against these four threats.

Regards

 

[Robin Walker [MVP]]

I have recently installed Microsoft's Spyware Beta (SPB)
system and tested it by running simultenously AD-Aware
Personal, Trend Micro (house Call) and Trend Micor
Spyware. SPB came of worst, showing no threats when each
of the two others showed four threats with URL's: from
process: Malaware (Clickspring)and from Data Miners:
Atwola.com; live 365.com; Clickability.com. I also
maintain current Spybot and SpyBlaster.

It is well documented that MSAS Beta 1 does not investigate cookies, or data
miners. If you eliminate all cookie-detections from the other results, how
does MSAS compare now?

It is debatable whether cookies are sufficient of a "threat" to get worked
up about. They cannot harm your PC, its operating system, or its software.

 

[PhilGreg]

I have recently installed Microsoft's Spyware Beta (SPB)
system and tested it by running simultenously AD-Aware
Personal, Trend Micro (house Call) and Trend Micor
Spyware. SPB came of worst, showing no threats when each
of the two others showed four threats with URL's: from
process: Malaware (Clickspring)and from Data Miners:
Atwola.com; live 365.com; Clickability.com. I also
maintain current Spybot and SpyBlaster.

Comments invited from others about comparable performance
and how to protect against these four threats.

Regards

==> Check out CounterSpy from www.Sunbelt .com It's come a very long
way since the demise of Giant

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I'm not disagreeing with this recommendation, although I haven't tested it
myself.

However, it'd be good to warn potential testers that the two products share
enough code to cause some problems when installed together.

In general, my current understanding is that if Microsoft Antispyware
doesn't function correctly after CounterSpy is installed, doing a control
panel, add or remove programs, Microsoft Antispyware, change,
update--operation, should fix the problems.

--

 

[PhilGreg]

I'm not disagreeing with this recommendation, although I haven't
tested it myself.

However, it'd be good to warn potential testers that the two
products share enough code to cause some problems when installed
together.

In general, my current understanding is that if Microsoft
Antispyware doesn't function correctly after CounterSpy is
installed, doing a control panel, add or remove programs, Microsoft
Antispyware, change, update--operation, should fix the problems.

==> That is partially correct for the current public version of
CounterSpy. On some machines, depending upon configuration, they
cohabit well provided only one is running in the background while the
other is used as an on demand scanner. However, if one is uninstalled
then the other must be as well. This is not a problem with the
CounterSpy beta because the code has been rewritten.

IOW, some ppl are making the same mistake of attempting to run two AV
proggies simultaneously. Obviously a no no.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Thanks--here's a better URL:

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/CounterSpy.cfm

--

 

[PhilGreg]

Thanks--here's a better URL:

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/CounterSpy.cfm

==> TY. BTDT. I beta test Counterspy

 

[Bill Sanderson]

So I gather. However, your original post had a URL which didn't lead to
their site.

--

 

[PhilGreg]

So I gather. However, your original post had a URL which didn't
lead to their site.

Went back and checked. Space between Sunbelt and the dot.