Jump to content
fatdcuk

SAS Review

Recommended Posts

Having just read the article i am somewhat dismayed at the authors tones and possible motives so i have to voice my opinion :x

IMO If the author alledged expert or just self pronounced software guru has not read the SAS product description then most of his expert tetsing is apples and pears time again :roll:

As far as i'm aware SAS does not target commercial keyloggers as they are used for legitimate reasons,now Sinowals(trojan) and PSW's are a different kettle of fish but the author seems to have bypassed these REAL malwares in his testing :?

SAS does not say it is HIBS or IDS software so why throw the EIRCAR model at it again and proclaim failure but then this is a so called expert doing the testing :?

So a process got injected....was it malicious code injected...no ok then whats the point of this test.

SAS does not claim to be HIBS/IDS software, so why test it as such :?

Next up the one thing SAS dose better than the rest he dose'nt get around to testing by his own admission,ask yourself why not ?

Because this is a bigoted and contrived review :cry:

Expert testing with only 2 rootkits,don't make me laugh :oops:

Its about time these bigots tested SAS versus malicious code and not POC's code but then they will not do that because the results are the opposite of what they want :wink:

Sorry folks,just my 2cents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Nick,

Have you read the review from Gizmo Richards. http://techsupportalert.com/issues/al_current.htm

Badcompany.

I am preparaing an official response - he says it himself that SAS is designed to detect and remove infections that may already be present, and our real-time is designed to detect and prevent the installers - we don't claim to be a HIPS system and we ceratianly don't just decompress every form of file (.ZIP, .7Z, etc.) because we don't see actual infections using these strategies.

SUPERAntiSpyware focuses on actual infections on actual systems, not theoretical infections and test cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought SAS Pro a couple of months ago and have had no issues with it but all that it has caught was a couple of cookies which of course are of no real consequence anyways.

On the other hand if as this review implies SAS Pro has no capability of stopping any "zero day" threats, then I feel I should have saved my money and stuck with SAS regular version along with my present complement of programs: NOD32, Boclean, WinPatrol Plus and using Opera as my browser, along with a good dose of common sense.

Or to put it another way, on a system that is clean it seems that SAS Pro would be unneeded if you have a good HIPS program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bought SAS Pro a couple of months ago and have had no issues with it but all that it has caught was a couple of cookies which of course are of no real consequence anyways.

On the other hand if as this review implies SAS Pro has no capability of stopping any "zero day" threats, then I feel I should have saved my money and stuck with SAS regular version along with my present complement of programs: NOD32, Boclean, WinPatrol Plus and using Opera as my browser, along with a good dose of common sense.

Or to put it another way, on a system that is clean it seems that SAS Pro would be unneeded if you have a good HIPS program.

The review is not accurate - the author admitted he did not test against actual threats - SUPERAntiSpyware blocks installers, and threats from installing - no product, including BoClean, WinPatrol, HIPS, etc. products can stop everything every day. Having layered protection is the key to a successful defense against spyware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of delusional BS. Does this guy even live in the real world?

As a computer tech, I've thoroughly compared SAS to the competition. As such, SAS is the first program I run to clean infected computers, and the first program I recommend to my customers.

In fact, during my testing and comparisons, I was so impressed with SAS, that I became a reseller. I've been installing the Pro version on my customer's computers for months. Most of these customers were running either AVG free, Mcafee, or Norton. Yet, their computers were filled with general adware and spyware. It took SAS to clean them out. I keep in touch with these customers who previously had infected systems despite using one of the "Big Three", and all is well. Ditto for other AntiSpyware applications.

Don't let this nonsense get to you Nick. When you're on the way to the top, the jealous will always try to take you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone be interested in a product that only protected against theoretical threats in a controlled environment ?

This review makes it seem that way .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this review points out areas where SAS really could improve. For example:

1. Commercial Keyloggers...Why not detect them and give the end user an option not to detect if he doesn't want to.

2. Termination protection: Why not offer this? If there is a trojan on your machine, you might as well make it harder for the bad guys.

I still love SAS Pro, but think that the review does have some merit and should not be so easily dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this review points out areas where SAS really could improve. For example:

1. Commercial Keyloggers...Why not detect them and give the end user an option not to detect if he doesn't want to.

2. Termination protection: Why not offer this? If there is a trojan on your machine, you might as well make it harder for the bad guys.

I still love SAS Pro, but think that the review does have some merit and should not be so easily dismissed.

We don't focus on keyloggers as there are many products that already do this - with the amount of research and resources it takes to create and maintain spyware definitions - we have to choose where to focus, so we choose to focus on the active infections - we may add definitions for keyloggers in the future, but our product is SUPERAntiSpyware, not SUPERAntiKeylogger :)

We may add termination protection in a future build, but again, in our testing and use in our labs, we don't see many infections terminating our software.

To us, it is all about priority of "features" and our priority is rooting out hard to remove infections that other software misses, from active infection sites.

Every review has its merits, I just think the reviewers also should be held responsible for the methodology and type of tests they perform as they can hurt a products reputation with bogus and/or incorrect tests/procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I could download Snoop Free (a very good free anti keystroke logger) if I was really worried about it. When I had this program installed, I don't recall it using many resources either. But the point is to have fewer, not more antispyware programs. I would like to get my secruity suite down to 2 antispyware, 1 firewall, 1 AV, and 1 hardening application.

So in my opinion, I think detecting and removing keystroke loggers would be a worthwhile investment of resources. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm not an expert, just an end user.

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

×