Ad-Aware irrelevant...

[JEDIYoda]

I have used Lavasoft Ad-Aware for ages.
Lately it seems as if it is useless.

I get better results using SpyBot and SuperAntiSpyware.....

In fact Lavasoft Ad-Aware catches literally nothing.....
Both of the above are excellent.....even though SuoerAntiSpyware catches pretty much anything and everything.....

Am I correct that Ad-Aware truly is useless??

 

[Chiefcrowe]

I agree with you here. I like malwarebytes and superanti now.

 

[Zorander]

I stopped using Ad-Aware many years ago. I have been happily using Spybot S&D and, also recently, Hitman Pro.

 

[jadinolf]

I agree with you here. I like malwarebytes and superanti now.

Yep, I gave up on Ad-Aware years ago.

I thought everyone did-- my mistake.

I do use the Pro Versions of the above.

 

[lswino]

Hi,

Before I start, I work for Lavasoft. I'm also not a marketing guy - I work as a malware analyst, so don't mock me

Ad-Aware recently got a VB100 award from Virus Bulletin and ranked among the top applications in the detection chart: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

If you look at the chart, Lavasoft is right at the top. Also, look who we compete against. For a company our size, we punch well above our weight.

Also, the latest version, Ad-Aware 9.x was PCMag.com Editor's choice: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374093,00.asp

Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware don't feature in Virus Bulletin's tests and I've never seen them in any credible test comparatives, like Virus Bulletin, AV Test or AV Comparatives. I have absolutely no idea how good those apps are since there's no evidence to demonstrate their capabilities.

By submitting Ad-Aware to credible, industry standard testing organisations, we are able to prove that our detection rates kick ass. To say Ad-Aware is useless is good data for us, but can someone elaborate on that opinion? I am genuinely interested why you think that.

I often wonder why people use MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware. I'm not putting them down - they are colleagues who work hard in the fight against malware and that's to be respected, but given the choice of anti-malware apps, how do you choose which one to use?

Since I'm a malwware analyst, I honestly thought detection rates would be the key reason people use a particular app. Since Ad-Aware has proven detection rates and these other apps don't, is there another reason you prefer MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware?

If you want, you can talk to me directly on irc.geekshed.net - the room is #MalwareLab - my handle is wino. If I don't respond immediately, just hang around. I'm based in Europe, so I might not be awake

Cheers!

Andy

 

[JEDIYoda]

Hi,

Before I start, I work for Lavasoft. I'm also not a marketing guy - I work as a malware analyst, so don't mock me

Ad-Aware recently got a VB100 award from Virus Bulletin and ranked among the top applications in the detection chart: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

If you look at the chart, Lavasoft is right at the top. Also, look who we compete against. For a company our size, we punch well above our weight.

Also, the latest version, Ad-Aware 9.x was PCMag.com Editor's choice: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374093,00.asp

Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware don't feature in Virus Bulletin's tests and I've never seen them in any credible test comparatives, like Virus Bulletin, AV Test or AV Comparatives. I have absolutely no idea how good those apps are since there's no evidence to demonstrate their capabilities.

By submitting Ad-Aware to credible, industry standard testing organisations, we are able to prove that our detection rates kick ass. To say Ad-Aware is useless is good data for us, but can someone elaborate on that opinion? I am genuinely interested why you think that.

I often wonder why people use MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware. I'm not putting them down - they are colleagues who work hard in the fight against malware and that's to be respected, but given the choice of anti-malware apps, how do you choose which one to use?

Since I'm a malwware analyst, I honestly thought detection rates would be the key reason people use a particular app. Since Ad-Aware has proven detection rates and these other apps don't, is there another reason you prefer MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware?

If you want, you can talk to me directly on irc.geekshed.net - the room is #MalwareLab - my handle is wino. If I don't respond immediately, just hang around. I'm based in Europe, so I might not be awake

Cheers!

Andy

I understand what you are saying totally.
But those are tests done in a controlled environment as opposed to an un-controlled environment!

We also have such issues as...what one company considers something that is worth detecting.
In my own specific circumstances I have used your free version product as a first line of defense for years. Only recently have I started using such other free products immediately after using your product and sad to say..or perhaps I should be happy in retrospect these other products caught additional NASTIES!!!

Maybe it really is true that you get what you pay for...instread of being a cheap SOB, I might find your product everything you say it is, if I forked over some dough and purchased the full version!!

Have a nice day!@!

 

[eBauer]

Hi,

Before I start, I work for Lavasoft. I'm also not a marketing guy - I work as a malware analyst, so don't mock me

Ad-Aware recently got a VB100 award from Virus Bulletin and ranked among the top applications in the detection chart: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

If you look at the chart, Lavasoft is right at the top. Also, look who we compete against. For a company our size, we punch well above our weight.

Also, the latest version, Ad-Aware 9.x was PCMag.com Editor's choice: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374093,00.asp

Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware don't feature in Virus Bulletin's tests and I've never seen them in any credible test comparatives, like Virus Bulletin, AV Test or AV Comparatives. I have absolutely no idea how good those apps are since there's no evidence to demonstrate their capabilities.

By submitting Ad-Aware to credible, industry standard testing organisations, we are able to prove that our detection rates kick ass. To say Ad-Aware is useless is good data for us, but can someone elaborate on that opinion? I am genuinely interested why you think that.

I often wonder why people use MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware. I'm not putting them down - they are colleagues who work hard in the fight against malware and that's to be respected, but given the choice of anti-malware apps, how do you choose which one to use?

Since I'm a malwware analyst, I honestly thought detection rates would be the key reason people use a particular app. Since Ad-Aware has proven detection rates and these other apps don't, is there another reason you prefer MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware?

If you want, you can talk to me directly on irc.geekshed.net - the room is #MalwareLab - my handle is wino. If I don't respond immediately, just hang around. I'm based in Europe, so I might not be awake

Cheers!

Andy

I quit using ad-aware 2-3 years ago during the rogue Trojan boom and moved to Malwarebytes/Superantispyware/Combofix simply because it was one of the few programs would actually remove these types of viruses/spyware and seemed to catch a lot more than ad-aware/spybot.

Ad-aware might be better now, but I lost all faith in it a long time ago when it started detecting fewer and fewer items on systems that were obviously infected.

As far as online reviews, I typically don't pay attention to them because I'm in the opinion that someone is always paying someone on the internet to write a favorable review. From my experience, out on the field in an uncontrolled environment, Malwarebytes has been one of the best, if not THE best tool for the past three years.

 

[lswino]

Hi JEDIYoda,

Thanks for replying. Sorry for the long post! Get a cup of tea and here we go!

I understand what you are saying totally.
But those are tests done in a controlled environment as opposed to an un-controlled environment!

I guess these independent test bodies are the best we have right now. They're pretty good though. Have a look to see what you think of Virus Bulletin's test procedures:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml

.. and their test methodology:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/methodology.xml

It's true that VB runs tests in a lab - is that what you mean by 'controlled environment'? Is that problematic for you, in terms of the test's credibility? Virus Bulletin is also a member of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organisation (http://www.amtso.org/) which was set up to ensure reliable and representative testing of anti-malware products is carried out.

We also have such issues as...what one company considers something that is worth detecting.

We detect what is referred to as malware (worms, bots, trojans, viruses, rogues) - we don't 'not' put something like this into detection. We also handle what is referred to as 'potentially unwanted applications' (PUA) like Hotbar etc. Some companies shy away from PUA's because the companies involved often threaten legal action. All I can say is that we have never backed down from a such a threat (at least in the 5 years I've worked here).

As far as we're concerned, "malware" is worth detecting and any software that invades privacy, has dubious installation practises etc would also be worthy of detection. Is there a "flavour" of malware/PUA/"other software" Ad-Aware doesn't detect that you think we should?

In my own specific circumstances I have used your free version product as a first line of defense for years. Only recently have I started using such other free products immediately after using your product and sad to say..or perhaps I should be happy in retrospect these other products caught additional NASTIES!!!

I think we lost a lot of people after the horror of Ad-Aware 2007 - the next few versions weren't much better. I'm not surprised people stopped using Ad-Aware, frankly. Different story now though, but I think we're going to have a tough time persuading people :|

When you talk about other products detecting additional nasties, what other products do you mean and what were the nasties? Kernel mode root kits, polymorphic worms, viruses, that kind of stuff? Or something else?

Maybe it really is true that you get what you pay for...instread of being a cheap SOB, I might find your product everything you say it is, if I forked over some dough and purchased the full version!!

Just so you know, the free version has the same detection rates as the non-free version. We don't believe in distributing a hampered free product - that's a really low thing to do, in my opinion. People should have access to anti-malware software whether or not they can/want to pay for it.

Have a nice day!@!

You too! I'm curious to understand the reasons people stopped using Ad-Aware. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Andy
Lavasoft Malware Labs

 

[lswino]

Hi eBauer,

I quit using ad-aware 2-3 years ago during the rogue Trojan boom and moved to Malwarebytes/Superantispyware/Combofix simply because it was one of the few programs would actually remove these types of viruses/spyware and seemed to catch a lot more than ad-aware/spybot.

Totally understand why you used another product. If Ad-Aware wasn't solving a problem, you're right to get one that does. All I can do is tell you our detection rates are waaay better than 2-3 years ago and our inclusion in independent, public testing should demontstrate that. Honestly, I would question the efficacy of any product that has not been independently tested by a credible body. I definitely wouldn't trust the opinions of 'experts' on various security forums versus the hard evidence of a real test, but that's just me.

Ad-aware might be better now, but I lost all faith in it a long time ago when it started detecting fewer and fewer items on systems that were obviously infected.

Fair enough. Is it reasonable to say that detection rates are important to you? If so, how do you satisfy yourself that a particular product does/does not have a good detection rate? If you have your own set of freshly collected malware, do you run detection tests? Just curious.

As far as online reviews, I typically don't pay attention to them because I'm in the opinion that someone is always paying someone on the internet to write a favorable review. From my experience, out on the field in an uncontrolled environment, Malwarebytes has been one of the best, if not THE best tool for the past three years.

I also don't take some "random guy on a forum's" word for how good a product is. You can really only form an opinion (on anything!) based on evidence from a credible source. As a someone who works in the anti-malware industry, I know which organisations I would trust to provide this evidence but where does everyone else get it? I think often, it's word of mouth from an 'expert'. Maybe not though.

Out of curiosity, are you a tech support person who uses anti-malware apps to clean up infected machines? If "Product X" worked for you, I guess that it met a level of expectation you had, wheras other products fell short. How did you decide "Product X", in this case, Malwarebytes, was the best application?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read this. I'm really interested in your thoughts. For the record, this isn't a marketing push - I guess I just want to understand where Ad-Aware falls short these days. I'm hoping it's just that people don't use it any more and just don't have an opinion, rather than they use it regularly and they find that it's rubbish!

Cheers!

Andy
Lavasoft Malware Labs

 

[pcslookout]

Malwarebytes and Hitman Pro is where it is at now.

Both being really good even as free but even better with their paid versions. You really don't need the paid version of Hitman Pro unless you need it to clean something but you get a free 30 day trial. Highly doubt you will ever need it many times if you already have the paid version of Malwarebytes. Goes on sale anyway a lot.

 

[bononos]

Hi,

Before I start, I work for Lavasoft. I'm also not a marketing guy - I work as a malware analyst, so don't mock me

Ad-Aware recently got a VB100 award from Virus Bulletin and ranked among the top applications in the detection chart: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

.......

Why doesn't VB test Malwarebytes on account of its popularity among those in the know. I think I even saw a Microsoft techweb recommendation to install Malwarebytes. I think spybot isn't tested as well.

 

[lswino]

Why doesn't VB test Malwarebytes on account of its popularity among those in the know. I think I even saw a Microsoft techweb recommendation to install Malwarebytes. I think spybot isn't tested as well.

Hi bononos,

Companies voluntarily submit their application to Virus Bulletin for testing - VB don't test people who don't put their hat in the ring. I guess Malwarebytes and Spybot just don't submit their applications. Almost everyone else does though. You would need to ask those companies why not.

Virus Bulletin is a serious testing organisation that has zero commercial interest in promoting one app over another. In fact, testing is free for companies - they don't charge us anything. They run tests, if you pass, you pass and they explain why. If you fail, you fail and they explain why. They don't pull any punches if you fail and they don't hysterically praise you if you pass. You just get a score that helps regular people make an informed choice about which security application secures their machine.

For me, I'll take an informed choice based on evidence rather than a recommendation from those in the know. Why would I trust 'those in the know' anyway? How do they reach their conclusions? This is your PC's security we're talking about. It's important to make the right choice.

This is just fact finding simply because I'm interested. I'm not going to try to pull any subtle marketing tricks or put down other companies, because all anti-malware apps are trying to make the internet a safer place and I respect that. If product X works for you, that's cool - I'm just curious how you made the decision to choose product X and why you were comfortable with that choice.

I'm assuming you use an anti-malware app - which one(s) did you choose, why, and what problem did you install it to solve? Feel free to unload on Ad-Aware if you prefer so I can try to make it better.

Cheers!

Andy
Lavasoft Malware Labs

 

[bononos]

Hi bononos,

Companies voluntarily submit their application to Virus Bulletin for testing - VB don't test people who don't put their hat in the ring. I guess Malwarebytes and Spybot just don't submit their applications. Almost everyone else does though. You would need to ask those companies why not.

..... I'm assuming you use an anti-malware app - which one(s) did you choose, why, and what problem did you install it to solve? Feel free to unload on Ad-Aware if you prefer so I can try to make it better.

Cheers!

Andy
Lavasoft Malware Labs

I finally looked into Virus Bulletin and AVC and found that their testing suite cover viruses and other malware - the whole lot. And I found out that Ad-aware is now an antivirus/antimalware software. So anti-malware only apps eg. Spybot/MBAM would not fare well in such testing. As a professional you should have known this instead of coyly saying that "I have absolutely no idea how good those apps are since there's no evidence to demonstrate their capabilities." in your earlier post.

As far as how good MBAM or others, I'll admit I'm following the herd a little here. But I don't think its a case of good viral marketing which unfortunately is becoming more prevalent unless decent AV forums incl Wilders have been subverted.
And there are end-user testing (if they can be trusted) which show older antimalware sw performing very poorly.

On the corp side, Lavasoft being acquired by Solaria/2 internet scammers doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

AV Comparatives show that the top rated antivirus/malware still fall short in the malware category which is why I think a separate anti-malware only app is still necessary to cover the gap. The problem for me is figuring out layers of SW to use to cover all bases eg some AVs don't have real time monitoring... and the bigger and bigger signature files makes some AV like adaware impossible to run on P3 512Mb machines. I think the we are reaching the tipping point on AVs where HIPs type and heuristic scanning and monitoring are going to win out over searching for viral signatures.

 

[lswino]

Hi bononos,

I finally looked into Virus Bulletin and AVC and found that their testing suite cover viruses and other malware - the whole lot. And I found out that Ad-aware is now an antivirus/antimalware software. So anti-malware only apps eg. Spybot/MBAM would not fare well in such testing. As a professional you should have known this instead of coyly saying that "I have absolutely no idea how good those apps are since there's no evidence to demonstrate their capabilities." in your earlier post.

It's encouraging that you researched the various anti-malware testing organisations. Maybe this discussion will raise people's general awareness and helps somehow. Ultimately, you're right, Spybot/MBAM do not submit to these tests because they are unable to deal with viruses. They are colleagues and they are on our side against the bad guys. I respect their motivations hugely and would rather not make any claims about the capabilties of their applications. It's better let people draw their own conclusion.

I'm sure I wasn't being coy. I don't want to trick anyone - it doesn't help further the discussion which is what I'm here for and so far, quite enjoying. Way up at the top of the thread I said "I've never seen them in any credible test comparatives, like Virus Bulletin, AV Test or AV Comparatives". I should have ended the sentence with "credible test comparatives". I really didn't mean for the discussion to go another direction.

However, one simply doesn't know how good the apps you mention are. When I say "good", I mean detection/prevention/false positive rate and resource impact on the machine. I'm not saying they aren't, I just haven't seen any credible data on the efficacy of these apps, that's all. If it's available, that's a good thing - people could use it as a resource and should be shared around places like this and other forums.

As an aside, it's understandable that people don't know Ad-Aware has both anti-malware and anti-virus capabilities. With a name like Ad-Aware, it's not that surprising... not a very descriptive name for an anti-malware/virus app. I would change the name to something more meaningful, but it's not my call. Something to do with brand recognition, according to marketing people. *snore*

As far as how good MBAM or others, I'll admit I'm following the herd a little here. But I don't think its a case of good viral marketing which unfortunately is becoming more prevalent unless decent AV forums incl Wilders have been subverted.

How people form an opinion on their anti-malware application of choice ("following the herd a little") might not be that unusual. I don't think it's a case of good viral marketing either. It could just be that particular sources, like forum users or tech types recommend application X as the de facto standard. To the user, these sources of information are credible, so it's understandable they install "recommended application X". Who has time to wade through mountains of security software comparative reports? Who even knows about them?

The majority of companies, Lavasoft included, quickly share samples, malicious URLs and a variety of intelligence so that they can do their utmost to keep their customers safe (we share all this stuff with Spybot, too). At my level (i.e. malware analyst working in a lab) we just want users to be safe. Not one malware analyst I know really cares which security app you use as long as you use a good one. The key question is "how do you (or the herd, or other people) really know which ones are any good?".

And there are end-user testing (if they can be trusted) which show older antimalware sw performing very poorly.

I wonder if they publish their test methodology? If not, I probably wouldn't rely too much on those test reports.

On the corp side, Lavasoft being acquired by Solaria/2 internet scammers doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Yeah, I've heard similar comments.

AV Comparatives show that the top rated antivirus/malware still fall short in the malware category which is why I think a separate anti-malware only app is still necessary to cover the gap.

The most recent comparative from AV-Comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_aug2011.pdf) shows that the top rated apps have 96-99% and higher rates of detection on malware samples (worms, backdoors, bots, trojans, and so on). You're right, there is indeed a gap, although it is incredibly slight.

It may be a specious assumption that there is a direct detection overlap when using a secondary anti-malware application. I could be wrong. If you consider the resouce consumption and potential driver conflicts of two anti-malware apps, you may not actually be getting much more, if any, extra protection. I'd love to see someone test that. We could measure these kinds of things because we have lots of resources available (millions of malware samples, honeypots, crawlers, malicious URL lists, a wide range of hardware and operating system configurations etc), but it would be pointless to publish it because we'd understandibly be accused of bias. We also have better ways to spend our time. I'm looking at you, malware

The problem for me is figuring out layers of SW to use to cover all bases eg some AVs don't have real time monitoring...

It's absolutely right to say that no one application has a 100% detection rate and you're doing the right thing by making efforts to cover all bases. The problem is working out which combination of applications give you the hightest detection coverage, lowest resource footprint without compatability issues. It's a tough call, for sure.

and the bigger and bigger signature files makes some AV like adaware impossible to run on P3 512Mb machines. I think the we are reaching the tipping point on AVs where HIPs type and heuristic scanning and monitoring are going to win out over searching for viral signatures.

I think we reached that point years ago and no company has a water-tight solution yet. If you consider server side-polymorphism - every single bit of malware generated on the server behind the URL is unique. An anti-malware company will never get a copy of it, so it will never be detected by a signature, like an MD5. Even if they did get a hold of it, you can only create an MD5 checksum for that individual file, so you get a one signature to one sample detection ratio. If you see tens of thousands of new samples a day, which we do, you're right, more sophisticated detection methods, even more than HIPs and heuristics/behavioural even, are required. In this example, it may be possible to detect files based on attributes that make it unique, such as age, distribution patterns, origin and so on.

Anyway, I'm really here to see why people make certain choices regarding security applications. Apologies for the incredibly long post - I appreciate the discussion.

Andy
Lavasoft Malware Labs

 

[Matt1970]

Hi,

Before I start, I work for Lavasoft. I'm also not a marketing guy - I work as a malware analyst, so don't mock me

Ad-Aware recently got a VB100 award from Virus Bulletin and ranked among the top applications in the detection chart: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

If you look at the chart, Lavasoft is right at the top. Also, look who we compete against. For a company our size, we punch well above our weight.

Also, the latest version, Ad-Aware 9.x was PCMag.com Editor's choice: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374093,00.asp

Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware don't feature in Virus Bulletin's tests and I've never seen them in any credible test comparatives, like Virus Bulletin, AV Test or AV Comparatives. I have absolutely no idea how good those apps are since there's no evidence to demonstrate their capabilities.

By submitting Ad-Aware to credible, industry standard testing organisations, we are able to prove that our detection rates kick ass. To say Ad-Aware is useless is good data for us, but can someone elaborate on that opinion? I am genuinely interested why you think that.

I often wonder why people use MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware. I'm not putting them down - they are colleagues who work hard in the fight against malware and that's to be respected, but given the choice of anti-malware apps, how do you choose which one to use?

Since I'm a malwware analyst, I honestly thought detection rates would be the key reason people use a particular app. Since Ad-Aware has proven detection rates and these other apps don't, is there another reason you prefer MalwareBytes and SuperAntispyware?

If you want, you can talk to me directly on irc.geekshed.net - the room is #MalwareLab - my handle is wino. If I don't respond immediately, just hang around. I'm based in Europe, so I might not be awake

Cheers!

Andy

Hello Andy. Thanks for chiming in. You guys used to be the Go-To software for me working on customer PC. Follow it up with Spybot and you were done. Here is what killed it for me and after a lot of reading on the net it killed it for a LOT of other users. It was a good 5 years ago give or take you guys came out with a version and I think even a follow up version that loaded every time someone booted their PC. There was no MSCONFIG or Startup entry that would disable it. Nobody wants to edit their registry to stop a program from loading on startup so un-install was the only option.

 

[lswino]

Hello Andy. Thanks for chiming in. You guys used to be the Go-To software for me working on customer PC. Follow it up with Spybot and you were done. Here is what killed it for me and after a lot of reading on the net it killed it for a LOT of other users. It was a good 5 years ago give or take you guys came out with a version and I think even a follow up version that loaded every time someone booted their PC. There was no MSCONFIG or Startup entry that would disable it. Nobody wants to edit their registry to stop a program from loading on startup so un-install was the only option.

Hi Mat1970,

I remember the version you're talking about and I agree, it basically killed all the goodwill we got from various tech forums. In my mind, the idea behind that version was correct, but the execution was terrible, no doubt about it.

Ad-Aware had to evolve from being a simple on demand scanner that detected and cleaned up adware to being a tool that would block a real malware infection before it got a chance to do it's thing. The malware landscape shifted dramatically in the mid 2000's away from the blight of adware and on to much more serious malware. We wanted to be able to handle more advanced malware, so all of a sudden we needed an app that was more intergrated with the operating system.

To us, it was a total no-brainer, but the backlash told us otherwise and try as we might, we were unable to convince people that Ad-Aware had evolved. People's expectation of what Ad-Aware was supposed to be remained the same while behind the scenes, certainly in the malware lab, we were trying to expand what Ad-Aware was capable of. Some might call it a total misfire. Add to that some serious bugs and very quickly, people decided they needed to find an alternative solution - that's to be expected.

It may be the name "Ad-Aware" is causing problems too.. I guess the powers that be like the security an established brand brings but it might be worth shedding that security blanket and renaming the application in that better reflects what it does. Probably won't be back to this thread again since I'll be fired for comments like that .. kidding.

For us, the challenge is demonstrating that Ad-Aware is up with the best applications, not just anti-malware, but also anti-virus - we have test results to demonstrate it. We're going to keep doing submitting to credible test organisiations and publishing the results. Hopefully at some point, it will start to resonate a bit more with PC users who may give it a try.

Anyway, I hope that this discussion raises some awareness about security application testing and how it can help people make informed choices.

Cheers!

Andy

 

[bobross419]

In answer to your question of how someone decides which Anti-Malware software to use, it comes down to experience for me. Keep in mind that I, thankfully, haven't had to clean a computer in the past year. Also, please keep in mind that this is my personal process. I'm not looking to argue about it because you aren't going to change my ways, but I figured you deserved an answer as to the thought process I use.

When I did clean computers on a regular basis, my process was something like this...

Use the program that worked "best" last time (For example's sake lets say it was Ad-Aware). If it fixes the problem, great... its my goto for next time, if not, roll to another program that I've had success with in the past (e.g. Spybot). If choice two doesn't fix the problem I go down the list with other programs I've used before, then move on to ones I find from sources that I consider reputable (anandtech's Security section for instance).

Whichever program fixes my problem, unless its some one off solution from Symantec or something that is designed solely to fix that particular problem, will take the place in my mind of "best". Then, when I see a post in AT-Security asking "Plz hlp!!!!1111 Mlwr stps vwl kys" I'll recommend that "best" program (the word of mouth aspect of things).

I would assume that I'm not the only one that uses this process, and at some point many folks found Spybot or MBAM to fix a problem that Ad-Aware missed. And in the future Spybot/MBAM fixed another problem before they moved down the list to Ad-Aware which further cements the idea of Ad-Aware being an unnecessary product.

I'm also the type of person that frequents a few tech forums regularly and I have a general idea of which people know their shit enough for me to take advice from. I'll take the advice of someone that I "know" over some testing organization regardless of their credentials. I'll reiterate the previous comment that I just assume any organization's test results or reviews have been bought and paid for. Call me jaded, but I have more faith in my fellow ATers to help me choose good software than The ACRONYM Foundation.

The fact that two proven solutions (Spybot and MBAM) are absent for the previously mentioned test seriously puts a damper on their validity in my eyes. Regardless of the actual process or testing criteria that may have lead to these programs not being included, I won't even give it a second glance once I see some of my favorites absent. I can appreciate that they don't include themselves, possibly because they have a more specific scope than some of the other solutions, but that doesn't change the fact that I will disregard the test outright as soon as I see them missing.

Keep in mind that you are asking these questions on a tech forum, so our responses likely aren't the same as you would receive from folks that aren't technically inclined (they are probably asking "us" for advice anyways though ). I'm sure there are some people that will read the virus reviews, but I would wager that more people make their decisions based off of prior experience, a process similar to mine, or asking someone that made a decision based off of prior experience.

This could also be a part of the problem...
Google Search: best anti-malware software free

In addition to appearing first on the list, MBAM is mentioned 4 times on this page to Ad-Aware's 2. Also... whats not on the first page at all? www.virusbtn.com

Googling "anti-malware comparison" also doesn't bring you any results for virusbtn. (Am I the only one that reads that as "Virus Button?" lol).

In fact, the last time I tried finding anti-malware comparisons that were at all reputable it took me at least an hour of digging... and the only reason I put that much effort into it was to prove a point to someone about the efficacy of using anti-malware products. Anyone that is just trying to fix a problem likely won't spend that much time researching what product has the best detection rates... the time spent looking could have been better used actually running a scan.

I also did a google search for anti-virus comparison. Again, no mention of the Virus Button, but there is a legitimate looking (I'm taking it at face value here, and not actually digging because I'm tired, but .org in the URL screams "legit" to a lot of people) site as the first result:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Ad-Aware is absent from this list, as is Spybot and MBAM, but if you are trying to get your product out there you might consider having a focus group (not tech people, we'd likely skew the results) do google searches and see what actually comes up. Its all well and good that Ad-Aware scores well on Virus Button, but if no one can find it then its a waste of effort.

Things get even worse when you actually take a look at the Virus Button results. Its either a pass or fail... and I'm not about to spend $20 just to see some detailed test results. Also, some users may be looking for Windows Vista AV/AM comparisons and will completely disregard results for Windows 2003, so Virus Button is completely irrelevant to me as a consumer on multiple fronts.

Please keep in mind that I have no intention of sounding harsh and that tone does not translate well through text. I'd like to reiterate that this is the process that I use when dealing with malware (and virus for that matter) problems and how I see the Virus Button results. And sorry to keep calling it Virus Button... it just makes me giggle. Also, disregard bad spelling and grammar... I've been up for damn near 36 hours which could also contribute to how long this post ended up being.

 

[bononos]

.... This could also be a part of the problem...
Google Search: best anti-malware software free

In addition to appearing first on the list, MBAM is mentioned 4 times on this page to Ad-Aware's 2. Also... whats not on the first page at all? www.virusbtn.com

Googling "anti-malware comparison" also doesn't bring you any results for virusbtn. (Am I the only one that reads that as "Virus Button?" lol).

.......

MBAM should come up first and more often using your google search terms since its part of the search string itself!

Ad-aware also have 2 fails together with the 1 pass in the 3 testing periods it participated in Vb100.

 

[bobross419]

MBAM should come up first and more often using your google search terms since its part of the search string itself!

I agree, was just pointing out the search terms that I would use if I were googling for anti-malware software.

 

[eBauer]

Sorry for the late response, I haven't looked at this thread in a while.

Hi eBauer,

Fair enough. Is it reasonable to say that detection rates are important to you? If so, how do you satisfy yourself that a particular product does/does not have a good detection rate? If you have your own set of freshly collected malware, do you run detection tests? Just curious.

What's important is that the tool removes the known problem, not necessarily the amount of positives it can detect. If I see "XP Antivirus 2012" blaring on the screen, I know the PC is infected with XP Antivirus 2012. I don't care of the spyware program can detect 5,000 cookies, my job is to remove XP Antivirus 2012.

I also don't take some "random guy on a forum's" word for how good a product is. You can really only form an opinion (on anything!) based on evidence from a credible source. As a someone who works in the anti-malware industry, I know which organisations I would trust to provide this evidence but where does everyone else get it? I think often, it's word of mouth from an 'expert'. Maybe not though.

I believe going to a website such as "bleepingcomputer.com" is credible enough. Not only do they show you a step by step guide on how to remove the most current malware/spyware, they provide both an automatic (combofix/malwarebytes) and manual (deleting registry/known files) way of removal. This website/forum isn't out to sell a product, it is a simply a collection of fellow computer users sharing their knowledge and experience. There is no bias, they simply want to fix problems. This is also why a forum such as avsforums.com is 1000x better than any review site. You literally have user feedback from tens of thousands of people with real world experience.

Out of curiosity, are you a tech support person who uses anti-malware apps to clean up infected machines? If "Product X" worked for you, I guess that it met a level of expectation you had, wheras other products fell short. How did you decide "Product X", in this case, Malwarebytes, was the best application? Lavasoft Malware Labs

I provide IT Support to local friends and family, and through word of mouth my client base is expanding constantly. I decided that Malwarebytes and Combofix did their job when they removed whatever obvious infection was impairing the system. A few years back I actually would do a supplemental scan with Ad-aware to see if it would catch anything anything malwarebytes missed, but after it found only cookies time after time again, I had decided it was just a waste of time. Granted, it might be differnent now, but until the users from bleepingcomputer.com start recommending ad-aware, frankly I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[jacktesterson]

spybot FTW!

 

[go_gordon]

I've changed from ad-aware to malwarebyes antimalware. Works wonders on infected computers.

 

[brotj7]

^^^ Ditto for me.

Had 3 infections in a week from my wife's photo sharing early last year. Ad-Aware found nothing. Malwarebyes antimalware got it on all 3.

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

I forgot about AdAware. Haven't used that since it went the way of nagware. Goodbye.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Add me to the list of former ad-aware loyalists that quit using it due to the poor detection rate. I know you are saying you score well, however my experience has been that malware bytes is much better at detecting. It also does not detect cookies etc as dangerous.

The same goes for spybot, used to be fantastic, now crap. Malware bytes is even going downhill for me, it has trouble removing Win 7 Antivirus and its clones.

My suggestion is dont go the symantec/mcafee route and try to be everything under the sun, tech users ultimately make or break your business and we dont care what the app looks like as long as it is reliable and can remove things with ease.