Antispyware

[Zygy]

I am currently using SuperAntiSpyware, but I would be happier if I had
another one, since I am advised one will not always do a totally
comprehensive job. I used to also have Ad Aware, when I was on Win. XP, but
they it is not yet compatible with Win. Vista. What others are as good as
these two and are compatible with Win.Vista?

 

[MickK]

I use Ad-Aware 2007 (free) with Vista with apparently no problem.
I also use Spybot S&D but have disabled the Resident protection as I
considered it might cause some conflict with both the security included with
Vista and also Avast! which I also use.

MickK

 

[Charlie42]

I am currently using SuperAntiSpyware, but I would be happier if I had
another one, since I am advised one will not always do a totally
comprehensive job.

The problem isn't SuperAntiSpyware in itself, but an issue with anti spyware
programs in general: None of them have a sufficient detection rate. Experts
therefore recommend you scan with multiple anti spywares, hoping that one
will catch what the other(-s) do not.

I assume you also use Windows Defender, so theoretically you should be well
covered.

I used to also have Ad Aware, when I was on Win. XP, but they it is not
yet compatible with Win. Vista. What others are as good as these two and
are compatible with Win.Vista?

There are several: Spybot S&D, AVG Anti-Spyware, Spyware Doctor, and of
course the ones that come with security suites like Norton, McAfee, Eset and
F-Secure.

In addition you can run an online scanner like Kaspersky or HouseCall every
now and then, just keep in mind that these are also advertising tools, and
may portray things a bit dramatic in order to make you purchase a suite.

Charlie42

 

[Zygy]

Hi, Thank you for the reply. There may not be any problem using 2007 ver. of
Ad-Aware on Win. Vista, but is it doing the job it should be? Ad-Aware will
not confirm that 2007 is suitable for Win. Vista. I asked them at least
three times. Try yourself.

 

[Gerald3092]

Go here.... pick one off top three.... end of story.
TopTenReviews.Com - Antispyware
http://anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com/

Vista Ready.

I am currently using SuperAntiSpyware, but I would be happier if I had
another one, since I am advised one will not always do a totally
comprehensive job. I used to also have Ad Aware, when I was on Win. XP, but
they it is not yet compatible with Win. Vista. What others are as good as
these two and are compatible with Win.Vista?

 

[Gerald3092]

A "must see"....
December 2007 Windows Vista Application Compatibility Update
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943302

I am currently using SuperAntiSpyware, but I would be happier if I had
another one, since I am advised one will not always do a totally
comprehensive job. I used to also have Ad Aware, when I was on Win. XP, but
they it is not yet compatible with Win. Vista. What others are as good as
these two and are compatible with Win.Vista?

 

[Robinb]

Superantispyware happens to be one of the best antispyware around
and you should purchase it so it runs in real time.
Another good one that you can get free or purchase is AVG free antispyware
Adaware 2007 is very funky in Vista and in XP
I was using it and found it had so many problems on both operatiing systems
that i removed it
Spybot Search and Destroy 1.5 runs fine in vista too but I would take off
tea timer when installing it.
robin

 

[Victek]

Hi, Thank you for the reply. There may not be any problem using 2007 ver.
of Ad-Aware on Win. Vista, but is it doing the job it should be? Ad-Aware
will not confirm that 2007 is suitable for Win. Vista. I asked them at
least three times. Try yourself.

I regularly use different antispyware applications to cleanup badly infected
machines and I recommend Spyware Doctor which can be used "On Demand". I
like SD because the "Intelli-scan" (short scan) is very fast which is
important when I'm working and also because it does a good job of finding
and removing malware. I can't recommend Adaware 2007. In my experience
it's detection capability is very poor.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi, Thank you for the reply. There may not be any problem using 2007 ver. of
Ad-Aware on Win. Vista, but is it doing the job it should be? Ad-Aware will
not confirm that 2007 is suitable for Win. Vista. I asked them at least
three times. Try yourself.

If you will go to http://www.lavasoft.com/ and look at the picture of
the Adaware box in the upper left-hand corner of the page, you will
note that it says there "Windows Vista Compatible."

I can confirm that it works fine in Windows Vista.

 

[NonSuch [MVP]]

Ad-aware has gotten progressively bloated, and now they've added the
"Ask toolbar."

http://securitygarden.blogspot.com/2008/01/lavasoft-turning-to-dark-side.html

I no longer use it nor recommend it.

 

[Zygy]

Hi, Thank you all for the worthwhile responses. I am 101% satisfied that I
will find what I need!

 

[Straight Talk]

I am currently using SuperAntiSpyware, but I would be happier if I had
another one, since I am advised one will not always do a totally
comprehensive job.

Why don't you simply stop installing spyware?

I used to also have Ad Aware, when I was on Win. XP,

AdAware is a proven piece of crap.

but they it is not yet compatible with Win. Vista.

That's only a problem if you actually believe it adds value to install
it.

What others are as good as
these two and are compatible with Win.Vista?

Well, no anti-products can work reliably. Using not inherently broken
software in combination with your brain works, though.

 

[Straight Talk]

I regularly use different antispyware applications to cleanup badly infected
machines

Erhhmm, no you don't. Simply because that's impossible.

and I recommend Spyware Doctor which can be used "On Demand". I
like SD because the "Intelli-scan" (short scan) is very fast which is
important when I'm working and also because it does a good job of finding
and removing malware.

Yeah, right. Load your machine with tons of anti-crap. What makes you
believe this has anything to do with security?

 

[Straight Talk]

The problem isn't SuperAntiSpyware in itself, but an issue with anti spyware
programs in general: None of them have a sufficient detection rate.

The problem is that the idea of scanning for spyware is broken already
by design.

therefore recommend you scan with multiple anti spywares, hoping that one
will catch what the other(-s) do not.

I assume you also use Windows Defender, so theoretically you should be well
covered.

Huh? What does "well covered" mean?

There are several: Spybot S&D, AVG Anti-Spyware, Spyware Doctor, and of
course the ones that come with security suites like Norton, McAfee, Eset and
F-Secure.

Yes. The amount of crap available is overwhelming.

In addition you can run an online scanner like Kaspersky or HouseCall every
now and then, just keep in mind that these are also advertising tools, and
may portray things a bit dramatic in order to make you purchase a suite.

What led you to believe that online scanners have anything to do with
security? Commercials?

 

[Charlie42]

The problem is that the idea of scanning for spyware is broken
already by design.

And by that I believe you mean an infection may evade detection or disable a
scanner, correct? True, but still a lot of spy and adwares are found and
dealt with by scanners...

Although a previously infected computer can never be 100% trusted again
(unless you wipe and reinstall), the anti spywares on the market *are* able
to help you identify problems you otherwise might never have found. That is
the primary reason for using them. That some culprits might pass under the
radar, doesn't change that fact.

And a bulldozer wipe and reinstall is a bit over the top when all you need
to get rid of is some minor to mid annoyance, like a pop up advertiser,
toolbar or harmless cookie.

Huh? What does "well covered" mean?

That the OP follows the general advice to run more than one anti spyware. My
point is I don't think "Zygy" needs to install further programs.

What led you to believe that online scanners have anything to do with
security? Commercials?

I think I made myself clear in my post. Though I believe they can have some
value in identifying problems, they should first and foremost be considered
as advertising tools. False positives should hardly come as a surprise,
exercise sound judgement if you use them.

Charlie42

 

[Straight Talk]

And by that I believe you mean an infection may evade detection or disable a
scanner, correct? True, but still a lot of spy and adwares are found and
dealt with by scanners...

Correct. Since the idea is broken by design, you can decide to play
along and catch the small fish and let the big ones go unattended. I
prefer to avoid it entirely.

Although a previously infected computer can never be 100% trusted again
(unless you wipe and reinstall), the anti spywares on the market *are* able
to help you identify problems you otherwise might never have found. That is
the primary reason for using them. That some culprits might pass under the
radar, doesn't change that fact.

But why "deal with the problem" in such unreliable way when it's not
that hard to avoid it completely?

And a bulldozer wipe and reinstall is a bit over the top when all you need
to get rid of is some minor to mid annoyance, like a pop up advertiser,
toolbar or harmless cookie.

True. But the challenge for layman is to confirm a system to be clean.
Heck, even a lot of "experts" fail that challenge.

That the OP follows the general advice to run more than one anti spyware. My
point is I don't think "Zygy" needs to install further programs.

But "well covered" indicates also that ad- and spyware is somehow
inevitable and that you therefore need to cover "as much as possible".
That's a fallacy.

 

[Charlie42]

Correct. Since the idea is broken by design, you can decide to play
along and catch the small fish and let the big ones go unattended. I
prefer to avoid it entirely.

Thereby leaving fish that could have been caught to run the pond? We
disagree.

But why "deal with the problem" in such unreliable way when it's not
that hard to avoid it completely?

Hard? Perhaps not to computer wizes, but they are a scarce resource. Most
home and small business users simply do not have the motivation to learn how
to avoid troubles that can be prevented by knowledge, a hw firewall and hips
protection, or something along those lines. Not to mention their kids...

Way to often I come across multiple infected computers, where the operator
just couldn't be bothered with downloading Tuesday patches, and didn't have
an understanding of what things like "reliable source" and "signature
subscription renewal" meant.

And I can't really scold anyone for it either, the average user is exactly
that: A user. Computers are an aid, his or her training and work is in a
different field. They want to use their computer for production or leisure,
not dig into the esoterics of security and tweaks.

I think it is unwise to advice against using security software, for the
simple reason you would then be factoring out the human in front of the
keyboard. Most of us need, and are quite happy with, software that will do
the policing for us.

True. But the challenge for layman is to confirm a system to be clean.
Heck, even a lot of "experts" fail that challenge.

Agreed. Like I said, there's no such thing as 100% here. When there's
suspicion of a compromize, malicious attack, rootkit aso., most network
admins know they're in for a late night shift rebuilding the system.

But "well covered" indicates also that ad- and spyware is somehow
inevitable and that you therefore need to cover "as much as possible".
That's a fallacy.

In my opinion, ad and spyware *is* inevitable for a common surfer. It seems
to hard to tell which downloads are safe, and which aren't. For kids and
participants in social and P2P networks in particular. Hence a need for
policing software.

Charlie42

 

[robinb]

i have run adaware 2007 on both xp and vista and it sucks
Adaware SE was very stable, easy to use, very straight foward
What i do not understand is if you have a product that works well and it is
just not vista ready, just fix that part but do not change the entire
program.

robin

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

It may have the words, but it doesn't have the legal Microsoft symbol
showing it is truly Vista compatable. I am a Beta tester for LavaSoft
and ran precluders to AdAware 2007 and I am shocked by how buggy and
unreliable it is.

I don't know what the beta versions were like, but, as I said, I
haven't had any problems with the RTM version. What problems have you
seen?

I am currently keeping AdAware SE despite LavaSoft's
efforts to get you to change as they constantly badger you to do in
their forums. I have also added other AntiSpyware programs to make sure
all my coverages are current and my scans and removals accurate.

Running more than one anti-spyware program is a very good thing to do.
I also run several. None is good enough to rely on completely.

 

[Straight Talk]

Thereby leaving fish that could have been caught to run the pond? We
disagree.

What part of "avoid it entirely" did you fail to understand?

Hard? Perhaps not to computer wizes, but they are a scarce resource. Most
home and small business users simply do not have the motivation to learn how
to avoid troubles that can be prevented by knowledge, a hw firewall and hips
protection, or something along those lines. Not to mention their kids...

Then they better learn. And they don't need all this protection stuff
you mention. No matter what, modern OS's kept updated happen to be
pretty secure. It's highly up to oneself. The idea that one cannot be
connected to the Internet without some kind of "protection" is a
fallacy imposed by security companies.

And they better teach their kids too. I assume they don't send their
kids out in the traffic without proper guidance either. And BTW, kids
should never have administrative privileges on computers.

Way to often I come across multiple infected computers, where the operator
just couldn't be bothered with downloading Tuesday patches, and didn't have
an understanding of what things like "reliable source" and "signature
subscription renewal" meant.

If keeping ones computer patched and thinking about what to
run/install is too big a task, one should reconsider using a computer
at all.

And I can't really scold anyone for it either, the average user is exactly
that: A user. Computers are an aid, his or her training and work is in a
different field. They want to use their computer for production or leisure,
not dig into the esoterics of security and tweaks.

That's no argument. Any sophisticated tool you use you have to
understand how to use properly. I bought a car only to be able to get
me from A to B. I'm just a user. That doesn't mean I don't have to
learn how to get from A to B safely.

I think it is unwise to advice against using security software, for the
simple reason you would then be factoring out the human in front of the
keyboard.

The human factor is the main problem and therefore the human factor is
where there is the most to gain security wise. Just installing
"security" products in order to "fix" the human factor doesn't bring
us anywhere in terms of security. A stupid user with a security suite
is still a stupid user.

Most of us need, and are quite happy with, software that will do
the policing for us.

Software is unable to determine if what you're doing is good or bad.
That's just a fact.

Agreed. Like I said, there's no such thing as 100% here. When there's
suspicion of a compromize, malicious attack, rootkit aso., most network
admins know they're in for a late night shift rebuilding the system.


In my opinion, ad and spyware *is* inevitable for a common surfer.

What nonsense... What "security" software company do you represent?

It seems to hard to tell which downloads are safe, and which aren't. For kids

if you allow kids to download and install programs on their own, we
are no longer discussing security.

and participants in social and P2P networks in particular.

if you install/run programs from questionable sources like P2P
networks, we are no longer discussing security.

Hence a need for policing software.

Policing software is an illusion. There is no easy cure for stupidity.