Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Superantispyware (Product Update)


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 ClueOne

ClueOne

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 10:54 AM

I updated SAS Free Edition this afternoon, which required me to make an install, once that followed through, the program itself now takes 15/20 seconds to load up, once I click on the SAS icon. Is anybody else experiencing this at all?

 

I would like to add that I have just uninstalled SAS by using the Uninstall tool that was provided by there website, and now but only a few minutes ago have reinstalled, but with the same result as the above. Could this be a bug? 

I have been using this program now for a good few years with no problems what's so ever. It's only been since the last update before this one, which was the time just before Christmas on the 22nd I believe, that I encountered my first hiccup with SAS.


Edited by ClueOne, 28 January 2015 - 11:02 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Sintharius

Sintharius

    Bleepin' Sniper


  • Members
  • 5,639 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Local time:08:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 10:58 AM

Well, SAS is no longer recommended - its detection rate has fallen, and now the program itself eats up a lot of resources when it runs. SAS is better off as an on-demand scanner.

#3 kaz20

kaz20

  • Members
  • 165 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:02 AM

Is their a link to recommended programs to use like MBAM and maybe something to replace SAS since i also have it on my computer?



#4 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:05 AM

It depends of what you want. If you already have an active Antivirus with real-time protection, and Malwarebytes then you'll be good. You could use Malwarebytes free for on-demand scan or paid for real-time protection, both options are good. Personally, I don't think that you need any other Antimalware other than Malwarebytes, but that's just my opinion. Do you have an Antimalware for on-demand scan, or real time protection? Also, free or paid?

Edited by Aura., 28 January 2015 - 11:05 AM.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#5 ClueOne

ClueOne
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:09 AM

HI Alex I appreciate the response..I only ever use SAS to scan, anyway. I never have it loaded unless I am scanning, which is twice a week. No longer recommended?..I had no idea. I have a fairly fast computer I would say. That would sound about right, due to what you have told me about the program eating up a lot of resources.

 

Due to the loading delay, would you say that it caused with what you have described as?

 

Cheers



#6 ClueOne

ClueOne
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:13 AM

Wow as soon as I typed my question..I already had three responses. Mind you I did make a coffee lol That's great. If I would of known I would of acknowledged Kaz & Aura too :)



#7 ClueOne

ClueOne
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:17 AM

And yes, Aura. I have Malwarebytes (Free Edition) and Eset Security 8. The thing is with SAS I always find that when scanning, that SAS always tends to find more then the two that I have mentioned.



#8 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:28 AM

What detections does SAS have more than ESET and MBAM? If it's cookies, tracking cookies, etc. it's not that bad. These aren't malicious, and you can easily get rid of them by using an Anti-Tracking extension like Ghostery or cleaning your temp files using Temp File Cleaner (TFC).

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#9 ClueOne

ClueOne
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:39 AM

Yes, Aura..It's Cookies/Tracking cookies, that it finds.



#10 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:41 AM

Then there's nothing to worry about. These are pretty much harmless and I'm sure that ESET and MBAM doesn't target them unless instructed too and it's a bit of a waste of them if you ask me since these aren't malware. Therefore, SAS doesn't really find anything more than ESET and MBAM.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#11 ClueOne

ClueOne
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:46 AM

Thank you again, Aura. Would you personally Uninstall it, all together?



#12 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:54 AM

Well, you can keep SAS if you want a second on-demand scanner in case of doubt. But you could also use Spybot, HitmanPro or any other Antimalware, it doesn't really matters. The choice is yours :)

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#13 Sintharius

Sintharius

    Bleepin' Sniper


  • Members
  • 5,639 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Local time:08:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 12:13 PM

If you wish to use another second opinion scanner then I recommend Emsisoft Anti-Malware.

These are pretty much harmless and I'm sure that ESET and MBAM doesn't target them unless instructed too and it's a bit of a waste of them if you ask me since these aren't malware.

As far as I know MBAM will never targets cookies. Not so sure about ESET as I don't use the standalone version, but ESET Online Scanner does not target cookies as well.
 

Well, you can keep SAS if you want a second on-demand scanner in case of doubt. But you could also use Spybot, HitmanPro or any other Antimalware, it doesn't really matters. The choice is yours :)

FYI, Aura... Spybot S&D is also no longer recommended - its performance is also poor, and the TeaTimer function is difficult to use for a lot of general users.

Edited by Alexstrasza, 28 January 2015 - 12:15 PM.


#14 xXToffeeXx

xXToffeeXx

    Bleepin' Polar Bear


  • Malware Response Instructor
  • 6,054 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Arctic Circle
  • Local time:08:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 12:23 PM

As far as I know MBAM will never targets cookies. Not so sure about ESET as I don't use the standalone version, but ESET Online Scanner does not target cookies as well.

Neither MBAM or any ESET product will target cookies. Detecting cookies is only done to boost detection rates nowadays it seems.

 

xXToffeeXx~


~If I am helping you and you have not had a reply from me in two days, please send me a PM~

 

logo-25.pngID Ransomware - Identify What Ransomware Encrypted Your Files [Support Topic] - If we have helped you out and you want to support what we do, you can do so here

 

 ~Twitter~ | ~Malware Analyst at Emsisoft~


#15 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:04 AM

Posted 28 January 2015 - 12:46 PM

If you wish to use another second opinion scanner then I recommend Emsisoft Anti-Malware.
 

These are pretty much harmless and I'm sure that ESET and MBAM doesn't target them unless instructed too and it's a bit of a waste of them if you ask me since these aren't malware.

As far as I know MBAM will never targets cookies. Not so sure about ESET as I don't use the standalone version, but ESET Online Scanner does not target cookies as well.
 

Well, you can keep SAS if you want a second on-demand scanner in case of doubt. But you could also use Spybot, HitmanPro or any other Antimalware, it doesn't really matters. The choice is yours :)

FYI, Aura... Spybot S&D is also no longer recommended - its performance is also poor, and the TeaTimer function is difficult to use for a lot of general users.


I know that TeaTimer must be disabled or killed before running fixes with OTL, FRST, etc. but didn't know that it was hard to use for general users. Then it's settled, every other Antimalware are useless now, Malwarebytes is where it's at :lol:

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users