Why do people recommend MBAM over SAS?

I don't get it? I have Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 so I know I am protected against viruses. Occasionally, I run SUPERAntiSpyware Pro and it always picks up about 10-20 harmful/tracking cookies then prompts me to remove them and reboot (don't know why the heck does it need to reboot to remove cookies but oh well )

Now in all the times that I have used Malwarebytes AntiMalware, it has NEVER EVER caught anything. So I run SAS most of the time.

People tell me to use both but I think that's just overkill and a waste of time since MBAM never catches anything and ignored the harmful cookies.

So why do 80% of the people I know online and the forums that I visit, always recommend MBAM as the program of choice next to your Antivirus for removing Malware?

It's either some people are blind to see that SAS goes the extra mile to remove the harmful cookies or I am missing something here

Please explain to teh meh

 

I've always installed that through Windows Update and it has never found anything.

Windows Defender + Malicious Software Removal Tool + anything Microsoft comes up software-wise (other than the OS) is useless crap

just my 2 cents

Windows Media Player
Internet Explorer
Windows Defender

are just a few to name

 

Windows Defender seriously, that worst anti-malware program in the world! Never found a single thing wherewas SAS found some programs I had like utilities that are supposed to extrat passwords such as Wireless Network passwords which contained a trojan

 

I am quite happy just using AVG for my main anti virus. My on demand preference would vary between MBAM, SAS, and Spybot.
What usually happens if strange problems do occur is, I will unleash my 'Security Toolbox', which consists of: MBAM, SAS, Spybot, Adaware, and Spyware Blaster and an occasional updated Webroot. I never have to run all of these of course, but there was a time when I ended up with a major virus that stopped all my internet connections and antivirus from working, so I tried a couple of these progs and they all found somthing different, to the extent that I could connect to the net and update my main antivirus,as well as all the rest. I updated and ran them all and in total they found 83 trojans,keyloggers,worms etc... I know I could have taken the easy way out and reinstalled but I'm the type of guy that likes to muck about and get to the route of the problem. (the problem on this occasion.........me being a moron!!!)
Since then I've never had any other infection as I am a lot wiser now, although I will always keep my 'Security Toolbox' incase of any emergancies.

Cheers,

Perrin.

 

83 trojans, keyloggers,worms, etc? That's what you get when you use crappy antivirus such as MSE or AVG mate. No offense, but if you didn't want to pay for an Antivirus, then the best one out there is Avira Antivir FTW, it has low false positives, light on the system, and actually does an outstanding job protecting you for a free antivirus. It uses the Kaspersky Scanning Engine so I've heard (minus a few things offcourse since it's free)

IE?? Seriously? No ad-block plus, the most vulnerable browser......and.....this....

Spoiler

 

I was using Avast at that time but changed to AVG a couple of months ago when the AV comparitive tests came out. And now it reminds me of how much I hated AVG in the first place. But will again be changing back to Avast I think ......in fact right now! AVG does hog quite a bit. Althoug to be fair, common sense does prevail when surfing, downloading etc.....

 

Common sense is your first wall of defense, but try Avira Antivir this time. Avast is a bit of a resource hog and isn't that much better than AVG to be honest. MSE and Avira Antivir are the best in the Free Antivirus World but MSE has more false positives and is a bit heavier on the system! Especially while it is performing an update, you would barely be able to use your computer.

 

You don't need any Ad-block Plus in IE9, just like in Opera.

Do your homework.

 

OP could you please see this link and fix the huge image you posted previously
http://forum.notebookreview.com/site-suggestions-help-announcements/109941-forum-rules.html
Limit is 500 X 500, we all do not have Fast ISP's thanks
I believe most here that run IE 9 and and AV program recommend the free version of MWB that does not run real time.

 

Then by your logic those 'Free Scan Your System Now!!!' pop-ups that find hundreds of things wrong are the best security....You should click a few of those for us...

 

Well I'm not the only one. Half of the whole internet community how crappy IE was. I agree it improved a lot since v6, v9 is NOT that bad if you had no other alternative unlike how the previous ones were. But still, whne you have a choice and still use IE it's crazy.

Use the Hosts file? Seriously? You expect me to right click on every ad and paste the URL in the hosts file then reboot? No thanks Ad-Block Plus FTW and you never ever see an ad in your life.

My friend hates Firefox, I kept talking him into ditching his IE and trying it out but he refused to even try it.... until recently.....he kept having performance issues with IE where opening a new tab would give him a delay although he has a highly specced system. He kept formatting installing/uninstalling IE but that didn't help until he was fed up. Once he tried Firefox and saw how snappier it was, how you can add themes/personas, the lovely addons that make your life easier like the Photobucket Add-On (with that you can right click on any image on the web and have it uploaded to your Photobucket account which is like imageshack and you can easily get the sharing codes for forums, emails, etc) or the Tiny URL add-on, or the no script add-on for increased secrity, the possibilities are endless.

Why don't you take the blind fold from your head, use Firefox for 1 day, then we talk?

 

Do you really think that's how people does it? Really.
My HOSTS file has hundreds of lines. How many have I put there myself? Zero.
The HOSTS file stops ALL PROGRAMS from accessing those URLs, not only ONE PROGRAM (like Fx, IE, Opera . . .).

The same goes for IE9, without any addons (and without changing the HOSTS file), but you refuse to understand what Indrek and I said.

 

Becose MBAM is the best , dude !

 

Actually, MSE has only 1 false positive (same as Panda) whereas Avira has a lot more (close to 10 if I'm not mistaken).
Ever since I started using MSE (since it first came out), I can say that I had 0 issues in terms of infections or malware.
I will agree it's a bit heavier on the RAM side (55MB with both of it's processes - though to be honest that's practically nothing) compared to Avira, but even when it's doing the scans it doesn't impact my system at all.

As for Avast... I could be wrong, but I think I noticed it became a bit more of a resource hog recently.
Well, not so much as in RAM consumption as much as the installation size itself.

And AVG... oh it's detection rate may have been improved slightly but it's still a resource hog - I wouldn't use it.

As for why people recommend MBAM more than SAS...
I would surmise that MBAM is more than enough as an on-demand scanner.
SAS has a tendency to remove 'tracking cookies'. Those are hardly harmful to be honest and cookies as such can be removed manually either way, so I don't see a problem.
Comparing both though, they seem to be pretty much equal, with 'popularity' (and image-wise) going more to MBAM.

 

Firefox is laggy. Chrome FTW

If anything, Firefox is getting worse as of late. It's accelerated release schedule is a PITA and it keeps crashing while playing Youtube videos while running the same version of the Flash plugin as Chrome and IE, yet the other two never crashed. Wonder why

 

Long time FF user and agreed it's been getting much worse lately.

OT I've been giving Norton 360 a good trial run lately (free from ISP) and can say they've come quite a long way. Unobtrusive and low resource usage.

Like MSE quite a bit and had been using that since release. Common sense is still the best defense, if only it would stop those harmful tracking cookies....

 

i use mbam the most nowadays in a past life i would have went with spybot and spywareblaster but i like mbam now i also use MSE

i would point out i've purchased mbam pro because it usually keeps me from going places i shouldn't although occasionaly i have to disable it to venture out into the unknowns of the internet

 

I use Emsisoft AntiMalware/EAM and MBAM (both paid versions) on one config.
Don't understand why EAM is in the poll as an additional program though.
Current EAM is meant to be used as a protection layer just like Avast, Avira or MSE AV.

Those programs are only called AV's because that's the naming convention most folks are used to but they all protect against different malware also; trojans, worms, rootkits etc, all these programs ought to be called AM's instead of AV's imo.
So, first vote for EAM even if it isn't run besides an AV in my case.

 

Mse+mbam+sas

 

what does this have to do with the question in the thread?

The OP did not ask what you are using? He asked why do people prefer MBAM over SAS

 

Two cents? You got to be kidding. The uneducated nonsense you wrote is worthless.

I'm sure you read that on the internets...

Oh really? And, "was", you said? I thought we are interested in what is. Well, in any case, I happen to not know that IE9 is "crappy". Somehow it serves me just fine.

I don't need Ad-Block Plus, "FTW"...

"Blindfolds", eh? Kid, I'll tell you a secret: Some of us have been using FFx when you were apparently still in diapers, at least from the looks of your posts. I did, for quite a while, until I had enough of the bloat, and realized that I didn't really need all those funny little toys you can load up FFx with. Turns out that IE9 does everything I need my browser to do, faster than and at least as secure as any of the competition. Case closed, for me.

 

That's one way of seeing it, why not use both as on demand scanners, there's nothing preventing you from doing that

 

Are you joking? MSE? Avast + + SAS + mbam maybe, no case MSE. MSE protection is too weak ~ 25% while Avast, Avira has more than 98%.

 

MSE too weak?
On what exactly are you basing that statement?
I've been using MSE since it first came out and it's always been more than enough (and I'm the type of guy who also goes to 'shady' websites).
On top of that I use Windows Firewall and Chrome with Adblock extension.

Furthremore, AV comparatives rate MSE higher than Avast in Malware/Trojan detection/removal and close to Avira.
Those 3 programs are always close to each other in detection rates.
MSE also has the lowest false positives compared to Avast/Avira which probably contributes to it's 'lower score' in some areas.

 

Post sources that show MSE is weak.

 

Luck at this DUDE !
- http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_retro_nov2011.pdf
- AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute: Nov/Dec 2011
- Virus Bulletin : VB100 award - latest comparative
Why people like you , must to be idiots ? MSE is verry weak. Is a virus , not antivirus.

 

Did you also take into account earlier tests? Just focusing on one test period is not of much use. Some AV's will perform better in Q1, then others in Q2, others in Q3 etc.
Not longer than a year ago, some test results made users conclude Avira was close-to-death.
Agreed, an AV like Avast offers more granularity and offers several 'shields' but some folks don't need to have a dedicated email scanner when they all do it online only, not everyone uses Outlook/Eudora etc.
Most folks here also won't click blindly on dodgy links/emails/etc and therefore don't need 'extra's' that other AV users actually like.

No use calling MSE users 'idiots' and no use calling MSE a virus either.
Jugling numbers is useless also, in your linked AV-C PDF, MSE outscores Avast in pro-active detection, that doesn't mean Avast became useless...

 

Tnx Baserk (no point in adding anything in particular since I agree with what you wrote).

'harrypoker'

Might I make a suggestion you write your posts in a more neutral capacity?
Seriously, just what is the point of your apparently enraged post and insulting remarks?
By the way, that AV comparatives pdf link you posted rates MSE higher than Avast.

Point being as Baserk already stated, AV's perform differently in different time frames.
Furthermore, not everyone requires insane amount of 'shields' that Avast for example offers since a lot of individuals view emails online and do not open unknown attachments, and they have a tendency to surf whilst implementing some 'common sense' on top of everything.

Also, if you want people to take you a bit more seriously, do learn to be a bit more civil (oh and learning to write proper English wouldn't hurt either, because right now, you come off as a mumbler who lashes out at people that don't conform to what you think).

Finally, MSE in my personal experience (and that of many other people in real life) is far from being a virus. McAfee on the other hand is much closer to that statement along with AVG.