Jump to content
redwolfe_98

Ignoring and Dismissing Reported Problems

Recommended Posts

i tested SAS with the "trojansimulator", running SAS pro with supposed realtime protection..

when i launched the "trojansimulator", SAS popped up an alert saying that SAS had blocked "trojansimulator.exe" from running, yet it was still running, and so, obviously, SAS failed to actually block it from running.. (SAS also failed to block the trojansimulator's "tsserv.exe" process from running)..

after running the "trojansimulator" and SAS's failure to prevent it from running, i ran a full manual scan.. SAS failed to flag the trojansimulator's "tsserv.exe" process which was running in memory, failed to flag the tsserv.exe file, and failed to flag the trojansimulator's "startup" regkey (in hklm/software/microsoft/windows/currentversion/run).. so, again, another complete failure (first with the realtime-protection, then with the manual scanning)..

i contacted SAS about this issue, but the excuse that they made was that the "trojansimulator" is harmless and so they do not bother to flag it.. well, the "trojansimulator" is for testing programs like SAS and i need for SAS to flag the trojansimulator in order to see that the program actually works the way that it is supposed to..

after reporting the issue, instead of being professional and working to improve SAS's detection of the "trojansimulator" and working to fix their malfunctioning realtime guard, they make excuses and ignore and dismiss the report.. when i point out that all they do is make excuses and ignore and dismiss reported problems with SAS, they say i am being rude.. uhg! is it too much to ask that SAS simply address the issues rather than making excuses and ignoring and dismissing reported problems? instead, i am supposed to accept their excuses and just say "OK", and just imagine that "there really are no problems with SAS", the way that they seem to do..

the people at SAS seem to lack professionalism and, if they actually have any talent, then why don't they fix the little issues that i report to them, like how the updater hangs when SAS is running in realtime, or how the program's "find out what's running" links cause IE to crash.. it shouldn't be hard to come up with an updater that functions properly, or to fix those "find out what's running" links to where they can open IE without causing it to crash.. or to fix the malware-databases so that SAS can handle the "trojansimulator" the same way that it would any other "malware"..

i would like to use SAS.. people say good things about it and i think SAS does good at adding detections for the latest malware to their malware-databases.. it would be great if the realtime protection actually worked.. and it would be great if the people at SAS had some professionalism where they would address the problems with SAS instead of making excuses and ignoring and dismissing reported problems..

incidentally, another "issue".. i tested to see if SAS could detect malware in a zipped folder and it didn't.. for testing, i zipped the "trojansimulator.exe" file and then did a manual scan and SAS did not flag the file.. you would think that SAS would be able to flag "malware" within a zipped folder..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm baffled.

On the one hand, there are reports like Robin's, from yesterday, which demonstrate (not for the first time) that SuperAntiSpyware detects and removes things when many other programs fail.

On the other, there are accounts like this one where it responds poorly to a malware simulator, and presumably it's this kind of testing that caused it to do badly in a recent comparative review. While I can see it may be desirable to use one of these artificial tests from time to time, we already have a statement that this is not a high priority for the development of the program, which focuses on real testing on real malware in the field.

I'm not capable of arguing the pros and cons in any technical sense, but it seems to me that stories like Robin's speak for themselves, whereas we're not actually at risk from malware simulators, however frustrating it may be for those who want to experiment with them. Also, I haven't experienced any updating problems myself, and wonder what they are?

Sometimes the water gets so muddy that it becomes almost impossible for the non-technical user like myself to achieve an informed opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i tested SAS with the "trojansimulator", running SAS pro with supposed realtime protection..

when i launched the "trojansimulator", SAS popped up an alert saying that SAS had blocked "trojansimulator.exe" from running, yet it was still running, and so, obviously, SAS failed to actually block it from running.. (SAS also failed to block the trojansimulator's "tsserv.exe" process from running)..

after running the "trojansimulator" and SAS's failure to prevent it from running, i ran a full manual scan.. SAS failed to flag the trojansimulator's "tsserv.exe" process which was running in memory, failed to flag the tsserv.exe file, and failed to flag the trojansimulator's "startup" regkey (in hklm/software/microsoft/windows/currentversion/run).. so, again, another complete failure (first with the realtime-protection, then with the manual scanning)..

i contacted SAS about this issue, but the excuse that they made was that the "trojansimulator" is harmless and so they do not bother to flag it.. well, the "trojansimulator" is for testing programs like SAS and i need for SAS to flag the trojansimulator in order to see that the program actually works the way that it is supposed to..

after reporting the issue, instead of being professional and working to improve SAS's detection of the "trojansimulator" and working to fix their malfunctioning realtime guard, they make excuses and ignore and dismiss the report.. when i point out that all they do is make excuses and ignore and dismiss reported problems with SAS, they say i am being rude.. uhg! is it too much to ask that SAS simply address the issues rather than making excuses and ignoring and dismissing reported problems? instead, i am supposed to accept their excuses and just say "OK", and just imagine that "there really are no problems with SAS", the way that they seem to do..

the people at SAS seem to lack professionalism and, if they actually have any talent, then why don't they fix the little issues that i report to them, like how the updater hangs when SAS is running in realtime, or how the program's "find out what's running" links cause IE to crash.. it shouldn't be hard to come up with an updater that functions properly, or to fix those "find out what's running" links to where they can open IE without causing it to crash.. or to fix the malware-databases so that SAS can handle the "trojansimulator" the same way that it would any other "malware"..

i would like to use SAS.. people say good things about it and i think SAS does good at adding detections for the latest malware to their malware-databases.. it would be great if the realtime protection actually worked.. and it would be great if the people at SAS had some professionalism where they would address the problems with SAS instead of making excuses and ignoring and dismissing reported problems..

incidentally, another "issue".. i tested to see if SAS could detect malware in a zipped folder and it didn't.. for testing, i zipped the "trojansimulator.exe" file and then did a manual scan and SAS did not flag the file.. you would think that SAS would be able to flag "malware" within a zipped folder..

I am more than happy to address this personally. You contacted our support staff and asked the question regarding the simulator and our staff did the proper thing and informed you that we don't focus on blocking simulators - we focus on blocking actual infections from actual threats. Our staff responded promptly, accurately and politely to your questions and concerns - so don't say we are "unprofessional".

If SUPERAntiSpyware didn't work, I highly doubt that millions of users would be using it and the forums would not be flooded with users reporting that SUPERAntiSpyware helped them remove infections that others did not remove.

For a full understanding and write up about "simulators" and how worthless they are as testing beds, please read my detailed response to the "Gizmo" review where all that was tested were various simulators and "compressed (zipped)" tests:

https://forums.superantispyware.com/viewtopic.php?t=779

We take all reports of problems and suggestions seriously and evaluate them individually for possible inclusion or "fixing" in future releases. Just because YOU feel we need to do something does not mean that is the best for OUR business and the rest of OUR users - when I make development and/or business decisions I make them based upon relevancy and based upon how they will effect our entire user base. If we "reacted" to every user concern, we would never be able to make forward progress on the software and the software would turn into bloatware. I have successfully lead SUPERAntiSpyware into the market as a solid and quality product, and I will continue to do so by analyzing the marketing, infection trends and evaluating user suggestions and concerns - even yours.

I have reviewed many of your posts and you seem to like to "rant" about things and most of them are unfounded rants that really have nothing to do about actual issues - only things "you think" should be a "certain way".

There is no problem expressing your opinion, but I won't tolerate you bashing our product, company or "talent" with inaccurate and misleading comments.

Why don't you conduct an actual test with SUPERAntiSpyware using actual infection sites and actual malware and see how we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm baffled.

On the one hand, there are reports like Robin's, from yesterday, which demonstrate (not for the first time) that SuperAntiSpyware detects and removes things when many other programs fail.

On the other, there are accounts like this one where it responds poorly to a malware simulator, and presumably it's this kind of testing that caused it to do badly in a recent comparative review. While I can see it may be desirable to use one of these artificial tests from time to time, we already have a statement that this is not a high priority for the development of the program, which focuses on real testing on real malware in the field.

I'm not capable of arguing the pros and cons in any technical sense, but it seems to me that stories like Robin's speak for themselves, whereas we're not actually at risk from malware simulators, however frustrating it may be for those who want to experiment with them. Also, I haven't experienced any updating problems myself, and wonder what they are?

Sometimes the water gets so muddy that it becomes almost impossible for the non-technical user like myself to achieve an informed opinion.

That is the problem when people post misinformed information - it makes it tough for people to understand what is really true. Here is a write up I did on a review where the author used "simulators":

https://forums.superantispyware.com/viewtopic.php?t=779

There are always situations where one system in a million has a problem - it's the nature of software - there is no way to get around it - I have been doing this for 25 years, and it just happens. The problem with some users is that they don't truly reveal what they have "done" to their systems and it makes the problems that much harder to track down.

For instance, the "Find Out What's Running On Your Computer" works for millions of people, but one user reports a problem, it's very difficult to track those types of issues down, but we do our best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people at SAS seem to lack professionalism and, if they actually have any talent, then why don't they fix the little issues that i report to them, like how the updater hangs when SAS is running in realtime, or how the program's "find out what's running" links cause IE to crash.. it shouldn't be hard to come up with an updater that functions properly, or to fix those "find out what's running" links to where they can open IE without causing it to crash.

I've installed SAS on over 150 systems running 98, ME, XP, and Vista. I've never seen the updater hang, or "Find out..." cause IE to crash. If it does, it's due to a problem with the computer, not with SAS.

I also know many who have contacted SAS's support for various reasons. All of them have reported that SAS's response was prompt and courteous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AlanD

I like you am no expert in this field.

I chose SAS because it was recommended by a couple of people both more knowledgeable than myself and whose views I had come to respect over a period of time from their posts in other forums - I knew that they had no axe to grind and both were offering honest advice based upon personnel experience.

Its certainly a decision I don't regret, I believe SAS Pro to be an excellent product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a write up I did on a review where the author used "simulators":

https://forums.superantispyware.com/viewtopic.php?t=779

Thanks for this reply. I'd already read these comments of yours with great interest just after you posted them. Your arguments made eminent sense to me then (as far as I'm capable of following the technical aspects). Reading them again now, they do seem to get at the core of Redwolfe's criticism, which was based on SAS's response to a simulator.

I've been using SAS free for months now, with increasing confidence in it, so I don't really need any persuading. As I said above, I don't feel I'm at risk from malware simulators in the wild!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I chose SAS because it was recommended by a couple of people both more knowledgeable than myself and whose views I had come to respect over a period of time from their posts in other forums - I knew that they had no axe to grind and both were offering honest advice based upon personnel experience.

Thanks for this. That's exactly my situation too. It's recommended by all the people whose expertise I've most come to respect.

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

×
×
  • Create New...