Malwarebytes vs SuperAntiSpyware

[etalmar]

I decided that I would start a new thread about Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware and their overall effectiveness. Malwarebytes is still only offered as a 32-bit program, while SuperAntiSpyware offers both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of their scanner.

I used to have Windows Defender on XP Pro in the mid part of 2009, it did show potential, but slowed my system to a crawl, if I selected to auto scan while I was using the notebook. Honestly, I don't feel that Defender (& IE8) was made for XP. Vista was already in place for two years, and Windows 7 was in the works. Something new was needed for 7, as well as the suffering (and robbed) Vista users.

If you don't have MSE installed, Defender is supposed to work, when I was running Avast, it was available for use, and being updated. But I no longer receive updates for it, as long as I have MSE, I don't need them, as Defender is turned off when MSE is installed. As I recall, Defender is malware protection, when I was running it (in XP), it was said not to rely on it as an AV. I never used it at all in 7, though it may have ran in the background before I had MSE, and I was unaware of it's presence.

Thanks for pointing out to me that Malwarebytes scanner isn't a 64 bit version, I now have to question it's effectiveness on my desktop. Many of the programs that I have on here is 32 bit, although the OS is 64 bit. Is it really protecting me to have it on here at all? Your point raises questions for me, if Malwarebytes is not a 64 bit malware program, although my program files may be scanned, my OS is not.

We do get another tool from Microsoft each month, the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and it is a 64 bit version. There is also a 32 bit version, for the ones who needs it. You can access it to do a full scan by typing "mrt" in the Start Menu, w/o the quotes. You'll see the program, it's the only program to show, when you type it in. You can choose from a short, long or custom scan. On a large drive, as many of us have these days, with a couple of OS's, and lots of programs, it will take a few hours to do a full scan. Be sure to have any of your extra drives plugged in, even your backup drive.

Your point about Malwarebytes has me concerned, hopefully I'll find a like product somewhere. Is that the way that Super AntiSpyware is, too? The regulars here knows that I'm a security freak, almost to the point of paranoia, and I'm just now discovering that my second string malware scanner is 32 bit only.

Only because I don't want to wear my new hard drive out early in life, I went from three sweeps (DOD method) to a single sweep with CCleaner.

I guess the MRT tool may have to do, but it's only updated once monthly, I update Malwarebytes before every scan. But I'll find something to take it's place.

Thanks for the heads up, etalmar.

Cat

To answer your question .. SuperAntiSpyware claims that it is available in both a 32-bit as well as 64-bit version. Upon installation, it is supposed to automatically determine your OS and download the correct version. I have had mixed feelings about using SAS on a regular basis, as I've tried it at least 3 or 4 times over the past 6 months and I always end up deleting it. This program has an irritating way of spreading itself into too many sectors of my OS, making it difficult to completely uninstall. If that isn't bad enough, I also read that it is most effective for removing adware and tracking cookies - not rootkits, trojans, and malware (like Malwarebytes).

Here's the claim from the SAS site (with link) http://www.superantispyware.com/producthistory.html?id=SUPERANTISPYWARE

• Blended 32/64-bit installer will install appropriate version for your operating system
• NATIVE 64-bit support - SUPERAntiSpyware will actually remove actual 64-bit infections (many other products don't)

I also have CCleaner set up to do a single pass after it cleans. The DOD and Gutmann methods are a little extreme to me.

Insofar as continuing to use Windows Defender, I will stick with that until the new MSE version comes out of beta and is released as an alpha version. I do not like using a beta release, regardless of how stable it may be, since I know that it could be buggy at times, which makes me uneasy about relying on it for protection.

Thanks for the info about the Malicious Software Removal tool. I will have to give that a test run and see if it finds anything on my new system. I remember seeing that as part of the MS updates, but have never used it.

You may find this link useful for locating 64-bit programs .. http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-windows7-vista-64-bit-software.htm

 

[Nibiru2012]

My two cents on this is Malwarebytes works just fine on an x64 Windows 7 operating system.

It is installed to the x86 Programs Folder and runs from there.

From the Malwarebytes.org website:

Key Features

• Support for Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 (32-bit and 64-bit).
• Light speed quick scanning.
• Ability to perform full scans for all drives.
• Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware protection module. (requires registration)
• Database updates released daily.
• Quarantine to hold threats and restore them at your convenience.
• Ignore list for both the scanner and Protection Module.
• Settings to enhance your Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware performance.
• A small list of extra utilities to help remove malware manually.
• Multi-lingual support.
• Works together with other anti-malware utilities.
• Command line support for quick scanning.
• Context menu integration to scan files on demand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the statement about Malwarebytes NOT working on a 64-bit system is moot.

 

[etalmar]

The point isn't moot. If you look closely at my original post, I never stated or implied that Malwarebytes didn't work. I did state that MBAM does not offer a 64-bit version of their program, so scanning is limited. Yes, MBAM installs and runs fine, but my concern (as well as Cat's) was that it is a 32-bit program and they do not offer a 64-bit version yet, so its overall effectiveness in removing malware is limited.

 

[clifford_cooley]

The point isn't moot. MBAM does not offer a 64-bit version of their program, so scanning is limited.

Just because a program is 32-bit does not mean it can not get the job done. A 32-bit application simply does not use all the resources available with a 64-bit OS to get the same job done versus a 64-bit application.

 

[etalmar]

Yes, I understand that and agree to a degree. However, a 32-bit program will not scan a 64-bit OS as thoroughly as a 64-bit program would, which makes me wonder about what it may be overlooking. That was my point.

 

[clifford_cooley]

I'm pretty sure if the 32-bit "Malwarebytes" fails to find a contamination. Malwarebytes will come out with a 64-bit version. For now if there is no Internet rumors about Malwarebytes 32-bit failing to work adequate on a 64-bit OS, I am content to think there is no problems.

 

[etalmar]

The down side for those of us who decided to take the leap of tech faith and use a 64-bit OS, despite its inherent application compatibility limitations, is that we'll just have to deal with unforeseen issues and take it as we go, until more software authors create 64-bit versions of their programs. I am not convinced that any 32-bit program, regardless of how well received and acclaimed it may be, is going to function at the same effectiveness level on a 64-bit system, as it does on the 32-bit systems that it was designed for. Incompatibility is a consequence of progress.

 

[Nibiru2012]

The main problem back over a year ago or so was that the Malwarebytes wasn't able to run the "Real Time Protection" module on 64-bit systems. Now it does, plus during the scan all folders are scanned including the "Program Files" (64-bit folder) too.

The only difference is the bandwidth available for the scanning process ie, 32-bit versus 64-bit bandwidth.

IE8 and Firefox browser are mostly 32-bit for most users and no issues there. The reason most of us haven't switched to the 64-bit browsers for everyday use is because Adobe Flash is not available in a 64-bit version.

You're basically just making much ado about nothing, to be honest with you.

If Malwarebytes.org states that they support the 64-bit version of Windows 7 then they do as evidenced by their rewriting the code for "Real Time Protection".

 

[etalmar]

You're entitled to your opinion...as am I. Speaking of ado, you are making just as much of a dramatic point defending Malwarebytes lack of a 64-bit program, as you claim that I am pointing out its absence.

As an aside observation - to be honest with you - you've made it a point to pick apart nearly all of my posts lately and it's starting to get a little annoying. Everyone is entitled to and should receive basic respect for stating their opinion .. even new members.

 

[Nibiru2012]

I was merely pointing out the fact that this thread was somewhat misleading is all.

The facts did not support your assertions.

No, I'm not picking apart your posts. Perhaps that's your perception.

 

[TorrentG]

Malwarebytes suffers absolutely none in its effectiveness while being used on a 64 bit OS. The fact that it is a 32 bit program does not inhibit what it does in any way.

That's two different ways of saying that Malwarebytes works as good on 64 as it does 32. Same. It doesn't "overlook" anything in a 64 OS.

 

[catilley1092]

You are correct about the Super AntiSpyware program, I have it, but all it ever finds are adware & tracking cookies. I run it once a month or so, just for this purpose. But it's nothing to depend upon.

Unless I hear a lot of complaints, I'll still use Malwarebytes, I've been using it for a while, and even if it doesn't deeply scan the OS itself, I still have faith in it. I update it daily, and usually do a short scan, too. Remember, it's my second string of protection, if it were my first, I'd get the paid version, where you have "realtime" protection, 24/7.

It's true, we did take a great leap in faith in going with 64 bit computing. For me, it was a great leap going to Windows 7, after running XP Pro for seven years. That scared me more than the 64 bit issue did, in fact, it was only after I received it that I realized it was 64 bit. I'm glad that it was, I've never seen the BSOD on this desktop since I purchased it last November. While there has been a couple of things that wouldn't run on here, it was not really a problem. I still have (for the time being) my 32 bit notebook.

And while not being the most powerful PC on the market by far (check my specs out), it has more than met my needs, especially after adding a drive & replacing my RAM sticks, making it 4GB. Progress does seem slow in getting everything in 64 bit mode, but the day will come. The issue of everything being 64 bit would cause some problems for some, especially businesses. As far as us end users goes, if everything was available in 64 bit, we would be alright. But not so with businesses, many companies have huge 32 bit system components, that would be very costly to replace.

This is what has made virtualization so big today, it gives companies a way to help upgrade without replacing everything. The VM's that we use are merely by-products of the much larger picture. Technology is advancing today at the most rapid pace ever, being a TechNet member, the things that I see are awesome! I can't even begin to comprehend many of the technologies available in today's tech labs and the marketplace.

And yet, even with all of these new and powerful technologies surrounding us, in 2010, 7 years after 64 bit was released to the public, it remains a roadblock to many. Regardless of whatever malware scanner that I have to use, I would never want to revert back to 32 bit. Never.

 

[clifford_cooley]

You are correct about the Super AntiSpyware program, I have it, but all it ever finds are adware & tracking cookies. I run it once a month or so, just for this purpose. But it's nothing to depend upon.

Here is my two-cents.

Lets take a closer look at the names of these programs (Malwarebytes vs Super AntiSpyware). Anti-spyware does not include viruses, Malware does include viruses. So the only similarity between the two that can be compared, would be the Anti-Spyware scanning.

 

[catilley1092]

I have both, but depend on Malwarebytes, as I scan daily with it. The other, I can live with or without it. Malwarebytes has been a vital part of my security for over two years, and will continue to be, along with MSE.

Man, my post from that other thread has lit a fire over here!

Cat

 

[SUPERAntiSpy]

Hello all - Nick Skrepetos from SUPERAntiSpyware here. I saw this thread and thought I would repond to a couple of points.

A non-64 bit native application can't access many 64-bit subsystems and therefor cannot remove malware that uses those systems. i.e. a 32 bit application won't read the 64-bit address space for processes and the 64-bit sections of the registry.

SUPERAntiSpyware detects and removes millions of malware, spyware, adware, rootkit, parasite, worm and trojan infections - we do not focus on viruses as there are many products that have that covered and do a great job.

As far as SUPERAntiSpyware vs Malwarebytes - the debate really should be SAS+MBAM vs Malware.

A Single Solution is NOT Enough - SAS will detect many threats that MBAM won't find just as MBAM will find threats SAS may not find. It's just the reality - we alone receive over 20,000 samples PER DAY - just as other companies do - no company, no matter who they are or what they claim can catch everything on a given day - it just doesn't happen.

We don't view MBAM as a competitor, we view them as an ally in the fight AGAINST malware - we aren't competing against MBAM. They have a nice product and we have a nice product - both products together provide a solid line of defense.

Remember we are all in the fight against the "bad guys", so the more "good guys" like SAS and MBAM you have on your team the better - so run both to have a fighting chance against malware in the real world.

 

[clifford_cooley]

As far as SUPERAntiSpyware vs Malwarebytes - the debate really should be SAS+MBAM vs Malware.

I like that quote.

Thanks for stopping by and setting the record straight.
+1 vote for "Super AntiSpyware"

 

[TorrentG]

I find it hard to believe that Malwarebytes can not access what's called 64 bit sections of the registry. Data is data and if it exists on the machine, there is certainly the possibility of the ability to access it.

What are the exact sections of the registry that Malwarebytes can not clean if there was unwanted entries in it? Meaning, which sections are immune to Malwarebytes?

 

[Nibiru2012]

I find it hard to believe that Malwarebytes can not access what's called 64 bit sections of the registry. Data is data and if it exists on the machine, there is certainly the possibility of the ability to access it.

What are the exact sections of the registry that Malwarebytes can not clean if there was unwanted entries in it? Meaning, which sections are immune to Malwarebytes?

That was my thought process too on this one. Thanks for verbalizing it here!

 

[SUPERAntiSpy]

I find it hard to believe that Malwarebytes can not access what's called 64 bit sections of the registry. Data is data and if it exists on the machine, there is certainly the possibility of the ability to access it.

What are the exact sections of the registry that Malwarebytes can not clean if there was unwanted entries in it? Meaning, which sections are immune to Malwarebytes?

Download ProcessMonitor from www.sysinternals.com - run MBAM and SAS and you can see which portions won't be accessed by MBAM.

Currently most malware is not 64-bit native, but as the 64-bit systems grow, they certainly will be coded for native 64-bit.

 

[catilley1092]

SUPERAntiSpy, welcome to the forum! I've been using your company's product for a year or so, and I do agree that it is a worthy product. It has removed lots of adware & tracking cookies, things that the competition misses during scanning. As I've already stated, I run a full scan monthly with the product. It is effective in what it does. It will continue to remain a part of my security portal.

Thanks for taking the time to visit our forum and setting things straight. Very seldom do reps from the companies take the time to visit the various forums and keep us informed.

Hopefully, between the four products that I have installed, combined with safe computing practices, my computer will remain free of all infections.

Let's all keep up the fight against all forms of viruses, malware, and all bad code!

Cat