Recommend anti-spyware, please?

[rjbull]

I run Online-Armor firewall, F-PROT Antivirus, and WinPatrol Plus system monitor.

Do I need any extra anti-spyware/anti-malware protection?  If so, what, please, are the best current recommendations?

Thanks...

[techidave]

Malwarebytes at malwarebytes.org is hard to beat!  They have a paid version and a free version.  The paid version does give you real time monitoring, but I haven't personally used the paid one.

[cmpm]

Malwarebytes seems to miss tracking cookies that SuperAntiSpyware will find.
That's with the real time monitoring as well.

Both free and pro versions here-

http://www.superantispyware.com/

Same as Malwarebytes, the free version will do the job of the paid version, except real time monitoring.

[Bamse]

Well I think Malwarebytes deliberately miss tracking cookies. The real relevant evil has more focus

You could try Dyndns Internet Guide http://www.dyndns.com/services/dynguide/ I have used for some time now, works pretty good with malware blocking. Porn etc. too. Like Opendns but without malware excluded.

There can be some cdn problems. Most of the time it seems to run great though. But search "opendns slow youtube" for technical explanation. Something to do with tons of ips/servers and the fact they direct you to X server perhaps placed far from you, and so not being optimal. Means you will get to know spinning loading wheel very well Minor differences in dns benchmarks don't mean a thing. You will need dns lookups so might as well use one that blocks with no impact on computer. Worth a test.

Also test WOT http://www.mywot.com/ When it comes to click problems while browsing it is much better "spyware" protection than most antispyware programs. Like a layer on top of browser filters you have already. Possible default settings are too intrusive but change them. Not much if any impact on browser speed. Perhaps a minimal delay in IE8 with opening new tab. Blocks more than paid Malwarebytes does btw., for the most part a good thing.

If you feel need to test malware domains/virus you should disable Dyndns and WOT. Can be done but much time wasted looking at blocking msg. Try do same blind clicking with only software running. Armor should kick though but may be too close to real problems.

Armor version? If you consider more resident programs check for possible compatibility problems before buying. Firewall can be AV, Antispyware as well. Free version should be neutral. Don't know F-Prot but Google combination, search Malwarebytes forum if that program is interesting.

[cyberdiva]

Malwarebytes seems to miss tracking cookies that SuperAntiSpyware will find.

It's true that Malwarebytes doesn't pay all that much attention to tracking cookies.  They're relatively harmless, and lots of other programs can catch them if you're concerned about them.  Malwarebytes focuses on more serious malware.  It's designed to find serious malware that most of the antivirus programs miss.  I've got Malwarebytes paid version on both my desktop (running WinXP Pro) and my netbook (running Win7), and I love it.  As has been said, the paid version offers real-time protection and also IP protection.  It will warn you and block malicious web sites, though you can turn this feature off if you don't want it, or turn it off for certain websites.

Three other things I really like about Malwarebytes:
1) it offers a very useful but speedy quick scan.  I have found it to be several times faster than the quick scan offered by SuperAntiSpyware.  The scan is the same for both free and paid versions.
2) If you buy the paid version, you get a lifetime license.  You never have to pay for upgrades.
3) The Malwarebytes website offers an astonishing degree of help, whether or not you've bought their program.

I guess I've become something of an enthusiast about Malwarebytes, so I should add that I have absolutely no connection to the company.  I'm just a very satisfied user of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Pro.

[MerleOne]

I vote for MalwareBytes too, SuperAntiSpyware is nice but scans are taking ages.

[sajman99]

I agree MBAM and SAS. Some folks really like Hitman Pro, but I personally haven't checked it out in many months.

Hazard Shield provides a malware scanner and optional realtime protection for free, but it's relatively new and unproven (AFAIK) at this point.

Also, don't forget the invaluable security/anti-malware protection provided by Sandboxie.

[cmpm]

The SAS scans do take a while, like doing full backups.
I set scans and backups to run when I go to work or sleep or away from the computer for a while.
Or use another computer.

I bought Malewarebytes, but not SAS, I just run it occasionally.
And I think SAS or a similar spyware cookie hunter is needed.

[Bamse]

Forgot Hostsman which let you subscribe to hphost, including incremental daily updates. The very same source Malwarebytes and WOT use. A2 Squared Anti-Malware does as well, possibly more programs. Make hosts blocking usable, very easy to add exclusions etc. No brainer really. Can also be used for ad-blocking of course.

Don't know Armor but in HIPS theory it should not be possible to get in trouble. F-Prot should work some too. May be still good reason to avoid latest malware domains, which includes flash/pdf exploits, so I think resident blacklisting of some sort will be useful.

Tons of options for extra scanning. Trend and especially ESET have almost full blown AVs available for "online" scans, including 32/64 bit and quarantine/restore support Hitman Pro is something else http://www.youtube.com/user/markloman#g/u Take balls to make such videos since market typically is highly sensitive to even nonsense "reviews". Nice to see someone showing how crappy they are, heh. Not so much marketing or 99.6% hitrate here, only disturbing. If program was more popular certain companies would probably make counter-vidoes! but still nice input from Hitman Pro. Have it in mind should you run in to a rootkit or other evil which more popular programs are clueless towards - or more likely prefer to ignore since removal is potentially risky. Ambition seems to be Malwarebytes of virus removal.

[mwb1100]

If you decide to go with either Malwarebytes or SuperAntiSpyware, use these discounts (unless you find better, of course):

  - Malwarebytes: use coupon code KV9-3KX-455 for $5 (20% off) Malwarebytes.
  - SuperAntiSpyware: uninstall the free trial to get a discount link
 

[Innuendo]

I went searching for an anti-malware program and I was really close to buying malwarebytes' offering, but when I ran them through their paces on a test computer none of them found anything that my Outpost Security Suite found (cookies aside. I don't know how any of these programs do on cookies because I have separate programs & extensions to deal with them.)

I was actually surprised that OSS found everything the dedicated programs did.

[sajman99]

btw SAS has a portable version of their malware scanner which is handy for flash drives.

http://www.superantispyware.com/portablescanner.html

[the_GASS]

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2010/02/03/best-performing-speed-and-memory-usage-antivirus-and-internet-security-for-2010/ ; IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED AND I'M ALLOWED TO SHARE THIS....

[tomos]

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2010/02/03/best-performing-speed-and-memory-usage-antivirus-and-internet-security-for-2010/  IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED AND I'M ALLOWED TO SHARE THIS....

that's: Best Performing (Speed and Memory Usage) Antivirus and Internet Security for 2010
thanks GASS

[Bamse]

Good you said that tomos, seems to be just lists to me. As he also starts to figure out in note secion at the bottom. He also throw in a bit of detection though. Such stupid blog lists are one of the reasons there continue to be security problems  Output is not adding to anything but number of lists and people/Google do love lists!, see comments...

[Daleus]

My university has a license for MBAM.

We tested the free version independantly, along side a few others, only one of which was competitive - SuperAntiSpyware.

I prefer MBAM, due to the simple interface and the fact that it finds everything the others do, and a few more. YMMV

In fact, because we use the near useless Trend Micro product, MBAM is invaluable - when you do a scan, as MBAM touches files, Trend finds virii.  Unfortunately, it's too stupid a product to find virii on it's own. Pathetic and embarrassing for the company and it's coders no doubt - what a piece of trash.

If it wasn't for MBAM, we'd be in big trouble.

[cmpm]

when you do a scan, as MBAM touches files, Trend finds virii

The same is true with Avira.
Mbam will stir the pot, so to speak.

I used Avira for a long time with no problems,
except for a few false positives.
I've now switched to Nod32 and very pleased with it.

If you hide a dormant virus, sure most will miss it until it tries to act.
Detection reliability would be the scores I'm interested in.

For me Nod is lighter then Avira, uses less resources for scans as well.
I don't know what numbers are being looked at.....with everyday use.
I look at, can I use my computer while a scan is running as if it's not.
Nod has that ability, dropping it's load down if the computer is being used.

[tomos]

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2010/02/03/best-performing-speed-and-memory-usage-antivirus-and-internet-security-for-2010/ ; IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED AND I'M ALLOWED TO SHARE THIS....

that's: Best Performing (Speed and Memory Usage) Antivirus and Internet Security for 2010
thanks GASS

well speed & memory can be important - e.g. if the scan takes all week you dont want the product
I have Avira AntiVir Premium - seems okay all round with good results in tests in general, but seems to not interact so well with Filebox Extender (stalls a while - XP) but I have it for another 11 months so will stick that out I guess. It has anti-spyware included but I have no idea how good that aspect of it is - either I'm lucky or I surf carefully... or something

[Bamse]

If a scan does not or only poorly detect infections in packed files you also don't want the product

You can do real performance testing of security stuff and still come up with lists but will take much time and effort. So since Raymond has a blog and commentators to feed he use a naked XP image and redo and redo and redo. And he includes what is considered rogue products! = he have no clue. Skips over impact and functionality of settings, like for example the fact some products use advanced cache which needs to work a while to kick in. As a minimum a full scan is required. No list is better than none in this case, is wrong in every way possible. If he instead of wasting time focused on fewer products on real setups he could make a more valuable post about how they "feel" for real, over a period of time and during different tasks. That is what matters. Throw in some numbers and stats too to make it readable/popular of course

[cmpm]

As a minimum a full scan is required.

Yes, I agree, while Nod will do a quick scan after update or on startup. A true test would be to do a full scan. And watching activity as well.

In other words with the program just setting there doing it's normal monitoring is not a true test if the virus is already there before adding the antivirus program.  To install an antivirus without a doing a full scan is not good practice.

Nod can kill the net connections while downloading when a virus is caught.
But i don't know that much about it. I do watch the behavior of my computer for changes after any activity. Launch speeds and resources.....or whatever....

[Bamse]

There are pros can cons. See what Avast list in todays update

low priority scans now use much less CPU (but run accordingly longer)

Result according to clock sucks then but may be you forget to click stop because scanning was almost unnoticable? Have to use program on own computer to get an idea. Some people like me cry over MSE usage of cpu and generally being way too active - others say it is lighest av ever.

[Innuendo]

Some people like me cry over MSE usage of cpu and generally being way too active - others say it is lighest av ever.

I'm waiting for some clever vendor to make a choice available in the program's preferences that will allow the user to choose between system-intensive and fast or light on resources and slower. Maybe a slider even so the user can fine-tune it between the two extremes to suit their preferences.

[cmpm]

That would be cool. Even to make a slider for program choices, if it could be accurate.
I hardly ever run a full scan, it just sets in the tray doing it's job.
If I already did a full scan, why do another?
I suppose just 'cuz, and mostly if there's a problem or just run it overnight.

[mwb1100]

I'm waiting for some clever vendor to make a choice available in the program's preferences that will allow the user to choose between system-intensive and fast or light on resources and slower. Maybe a slider even so the user can fine-tune it between the two extremes to suit their preferences.

The thing is, I think that for the most part you have 2 sets of people:

1) the ones who just want to install the stuff and have it protect them without causing a noticeable set of delays (or other inconveniences).  I think I'll make up a statistic and say that this accounts for probably 98% of the people out there.
2) the ones who want to tweak every last possible detail.  This is a comparatively small group, but vendors consider them important because these are the 'experts' that are vocal about their opinions and expertise, and they have a pretty large influence on the impression that the people in group 1 might have about a product.

I think a simple slider control would be more complexity than people in group 1 want to think about (and they'd still rightly complain about when the software allowed malware through when the slider was set to 'lite-but-less-accurate' mode), and not enough control or detain about what's happening for the people in group 2.

And I think that the market size for people who aren't pretty firmly in one of those two groups is pretty small.

[RedPillow]

Just a simple program called SpyBot.