Jump to content
jadda

Are SAS going to implent keylogger detection in the future?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I've seen in a PC World article that SUPERAntiSpyware detected zero keyloggers. Are you going to implent detection for keyloggers in the future? I know it's been some question about this before, but I couldn't find them right now.

URL: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2255857,00.asp

A little thing I think was bad by PC World. It looks like they have been testing SAS version 3.7 and this is what they have to say about it: SUPERAntiSpyware costs the same as the top standalone antispyware product yet doesn't remove malware as well, and it's worse at protecting a clean system. It's nimble and doesn't hog resources, but it has to get tougher against the bad guys.

Tougher agains the bad guys? Ok? SUPERAntiSpyware detect and removes spyware much better than it's competitors. It sonds like they didn't like SAS from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I've seen in a PC World article that SUPERAntiSpyware detected zero keyloggers. Are you going to implent detection for keyloggers in the future? I know it's been some question about this before, but I couldn't find them right now.

URL: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2255857,00.asp

A little thing I think was bad by PC World. It looks like they have been testing SAS version 3.7 and this is what they have to say about it: SUPERAntiSpyware costs the same as the top standalone antispyware product yet doesn't remove malware as well, and it's worse at protecting a clean system. It's nimble and doesn't hog resources, but it has to get tougher against the bad guys.

Tougher agains the bad guys? Ok? SUPERAntiSpyware detect and removes spyware much better than it's competitors. It sonds like they didn't like SAS from the beginning.

We may detect general keyloggers in the future. Currently we detect harmful keyloggers - as there are keyloggers used for legit purposes in businesses, etc.

The PC Mag tests appeared to test against year old malware as well, not current rootkits, real threats, etc. and we are not allowed to know the samples....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a farce.

PC mag is OWNED by their advertisers.

Spyware Doctor reports false positives that scare the end user into buying their product. SD is borderline rogue in of itself.

I've been repairing computers for 13 years and employ two techs. A major source of our income is malware removal. We have found nothing that even comes close to the detection and removal abilities of SAS.

Give me the money and I'll write you a damn good review. What? You don't pay us to advertise? Well than your product is ****.

Well done SAS. You guys kick ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd like to point out two things. The article was from PC MAG not PC World. Also, the test was for version 3.7 not 3.9, so who knows what the actual test would result in now. This article is no longer relevant for the reviews of current products (meaning its too old).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'd like to point out two things. The article was from PC MAG not PC World. Also, the test was for version 3.7 not 3.9, so who knows what the actual test would result in now. This article is no longer relevant for the reviews of current products (meaning its too old).

Ok, it was a typing mistake with the PC World. I ment PC Mag. And I did also write that they tested version 3.7 and not 3.9. EVEN if the test came out in early February.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×