Best Free Spyware And Adware Remover

 
Other Language?
  Read this article in Spanish
In a Hurry?
  Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide
Introduction
The Internet is a dangerous place to be in the 21st century. Unscrupulous people using malicious software are finding ingenious ways to access your information or lead you into spending money.  Spyware harvests information from your computer with keylogging and data capture techniques, while adware tracks your browsing habits and tempts you with popup ads related to websites you have visited.  Another less known troublemaker is scumware.  This software attacks websites and changes their advertising, for example changing family friendly links to adult rated links.
 
With every new generation of malware (adware, spyware, scumware, virus, rootkits, trojans), there will be a new generation of software to combat it.  Gizmo's offers many useful articles and reviews to help today's computer user obtain the necessary tools to combat the virtual foe.  This category will look at adware and spyware removers.  
 
The following products have been reviewed for this category;
Spybot-Preventor, Remover
SAS (SuperAntiSpyware) - Remover
Malwarebytes - Remover
Spywareblaster - Preventor
 
Discovery: All of these programs will perform manual scans, but some will not provide real-time scanning protection unless you upgrade to the paid version.  Some are removers, some are preventors.  It was difficult to find a free program that combined all the components.  The winner in this category is Spybot for it's removal and prevention ability in a free program.  SAS found more to remove, however it doesn't offer real-time protection.  
Discussion

Spybot is a malware remover.  Designed for basic use yet offers complex menus and information for advanced users.  After installation the program will offer to create a Whitelist.  This process indexes files for faster scans and isn't recommended unless the host computer is known to be clearn.  For best results cancel this option, update the software, run a full scan then create a Whitelist if all is clean.   

After updating I ran a quick scan which did not find my test file.  The scan menu offers third party cookie blocking.  The immunization feature interacts with the web browser to warn users of potentially harmful websites.  I tried to install sweetpacks toolbar and spybot put up a warning.  Spybot's full scan will also check for rootkit malware .  Spybot detected the EICAR bogus website the first time, however it didn't detect the bogus malware/virus file downloads.  Spybot also flagged a warning when I clicked on a 7-zip advertisement on C/NET.  Spybot works very well to warn of potential problems with links or websites.  

SuperAntiSpyware aka SAS detects and removes malware. Installation is simple however the install offers a free trial of pro version which I declined. After the program installs the home menu page opens. I ran the quick scan which impressively found 65 tracking cookies and 2 malware files. Other menus provide custom scans, the ability to set trusted items, and exclude folders. There are more options to set specific folders for scanning, doing quick scans and complete scans. The menu screen has a prefences button, but also has check boxes for features only available on the pro version. These boxes are somewhat annoying as they look meaningful but are essentially promo buttons to upgrade. The free version does not provide real time protection. SAS detected the footprint of two EICAR temp files from a previous visit to the EICAR website.

Malwarebytes is a malware detection and removal software. When the program first installs it will ask you if you want to update to the free pro trial, update definitions and launch the program. I selected to update the definitions and launch the program. The program launched with a configuration menu providing the options to peform a quick scan or full scan. I performed the quick scan which surprisingly detected 7 malware files the previous programs failed to recognize. Unfortunately the free version doesn't offer real time protection. Updating definitions is a good feature, and quarantined files can be manually deleted. A history of the logs is kept in an easily accessable history. There are several options for configuring how the program scans but scheduling isn't one of them. Rootkit scanning requires a separate file download.

Note: Malware Bytes uses the CNET website however it does not contain unwanted third party offers.

Honorable Mention: Spywareblaster is a prevention not a removal program but I felt worth mentioning here for it's unique features.

What, no scan feature? That's right because this program doesn't need one. Spywareblaster is all about prevent and protect. Heck this program doesn't even have to run in the back ground. It tweaks some browser security settings, adds some restricted sites and goes to sleep. Wake it up once a week to update the database, update the profiles and put it back to bed, that simple. What kind of program is this? One of the least intrusive yet most powerful malware blockers available. Spywareblaster has the smallest file size of the reviewed programs. The home screen opens letting you know protections are disabled. Run the update, enable the protections and you're done. Use system snapshot to create a restore point in case things go wrong. Spywareblaster is the only program reviewed to recommend this step. The tools option offers customer configurations and flash player blocking. Manually install updates and Spywareblaster will prompt you to reset the protections. The unique feature of this program is its focus to prevent and protect from the installation of adware, spyware and scumware using the web browser rather than perform cleanup or drain system resources by running in the back ground. Like virus definitions, Spywareblaster updates a list of troublesome maleware daily, this is why it's important to run the updates frequently for this program, recommendation is at least weekly. The paid version allows automatic updating.

Quick Selection Guide

SpyBot
5
 
Gizmo's Freeware award as the best product in its class!

Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
real-time protection, protects one or more user profiles
scan didn't detect malware coded file, does not uninstall cleanly
http://www.safer-networking.org/
2.19.1
36 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8

2.0 Supports IE, Chrome, Firefox, Apple Safari, Opera. Languages: English, German, Italian, Russian. Spybot Search & Destroy 1.6.2 available for older PCs.
v2.1.21 SR2 released 30 July, 2013
View the malware engine updates here

SUPERAntiSpyware
4
 
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Simple functional menus, good cookie tracker, supports all browsers
Free version doesn't offer real time protection, only scans.
http://www.superantispyware.com/
5.6.1018
24.3 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Feature limited freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
Win 2000 - Win 8

Supports all web browsers. Lanuages; Danish, French, German, Italian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish.
Supported formats: 32 and 64 bit

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free
4
 
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
detected files other programs missed, light and simple
no real-time protection, no scheduling, rootkit scanning requires additional download
http://www.malwarebytes.org/
1.75.0.1300
9.8 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Feature limited freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows Vista/Windows 7/Windows 8 /Windows XP Service Pack 2 or Later

Languages Available: English, Arabic, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese Simplified, Chinese Traditional, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese.

Spywareblaster
3.5
 
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
customizable block lists, doesn't use system resources by running in the back ground, does not affect browser performance or conflict with other software.
not a removal tool, must update protections after updating lists
5.0
4 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8.

Supports Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape, Seamonkey, Pale Moon, K-Meleon; and browsers that use the IE engine, including: AOL web, browser, Avant Browser, Slim Browser, Maxthon (formerly MyIE2), Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser

Editor

This software review is copy-edited by Glyn Burgess. Please help edit and improve this article by clicking here.

The comments section below is so lengthy that it has become difficult for our visitors to read. Future posts will now be edited for length and repetition, and personal attacks deleted. You are all welcome to join our Security Forum which is much better-suited for intensive debate.

 

Share this
3.99614
Average: 4 (259 votes)
Your rating: None

Comments

by Anonymous on 15. July 2008 - 17:55  (4275)

thanks for the heads up, i was going to install it to test it out but i thought i wound ask first. thanks!

by Anonymous on 14. July 2008 - 0:41  (4214)

Actually, Spyware Terminator does offer prevention, which is the only reason I use it seeing as how i have never even run a scan with it. I use SuperAntiSpyware for scanning and Spyware Terminator's extremely capable Real Time Shield with HIPS to protect me. Also, ever since I installed Spyware Terminator, SuperAntiSpyware has found NOTHING.

by JonathanT on 14. July 2008 - 7:06  (4217)

Hi

Yes, Steve said he is going to change that soon.

"Spyware Terminator's extremely capable Real Time Shield with HIPS". Actually most of ST's real-time is HIPS, is just they only labelled part of it has a HIPS. Do you use something like ThreatFire? If so, there could be quite a lot of overlap of protection.

"SuperAntiSpyware has found NOTHING." Well that's what you should aim to achieve. I run three signature programs and other than testing with VMs all they have ever found is false positives for around the past half year/year.

by Anonymous on 14. July 2008 - 21:10  (4225)

I admit "extremely capable Real Time Shield with HIPS" is a little over the top for a description of a free anti-spyware product. I used to have Threatfire, but I got rid of it because it didn't seem necessary. Also, SuperAntiSpyware probably would have found some cookies or something but I also use CCleaner.

by Anonymous on 7. July 2008 - 7:29  (3712)

A note of caution about Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware:

It uses a very old version of the zlib compression library. I expect it uses this in order to minimize bandwidth used during updates. The version that Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware uses is 1.1.3.1. The most recent version (released on July 18, 2005) is 1.2.3.0. In previous versions, there are known security vulnerabilities; there is at least one possible buffer overflow vulnerability and at least one denial-of-service vulnerability in versions prior to 1.2.3.0. I've already sent an email to the developers requesting that they close this security hole. Hopefully, they will listen.

by JonathanT on 7. July 2008 - 9:20  (3723)

Hi

It is discussed here: http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5245&st=0

A developer of MBAM said: "I believe Secunia exaggerated when they said it poses a security threat. The worst that could happen is a targeted attack against Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and it crashes." and
"We will update zlib.dll to the latest version after this release."

by Anonymous on 3. July 2008 - 23:17  (3522)

Hi
I tried rising anti virus and rising firewall together just to test them with matousec security software testing suit(SSTS) what I found, is rising firewall is not that effective and rising anti virus as well... rising anti virus found some viruses ( around 12 ) but it could not prevent the installation... I am not impressed with this new antivirus.. then I installed avira and scanned my system. avira found another 13 viruses and all belongs to that security suit.. then I scanned my computer with super anti spyware and MBMA but neither found any virus or malware, may be because I cleaned my computer with CCleaner before that... but my system was still infected... then I remembered another option "a-squard" a squard found another 6 infections and solved my problem... so in short rising missed around 19 infections though it found 12.. that means it's not that effective... avira found most of the rest... sign of number 1 anti virus.. and a-squard found the rest that means a-squard is also one of the essential part of security... impressed with avira and a-squard...

by JonathanT on 4. July 2008 - 1:35  (3529)

Hi

I don't think you need to post this twice.

Again, did you test these programs against SSTS by Matousec? Or was it against real malware?

by Anonymous on 4. July 2008 - 3:10  (3532)

Hi
I tested against SSTS by matousec ? I can't take a risk to test Rising against real malware... previously when I did this test with avira and comodo firewall I couldn't even extract the zip because of avira's real time guard... and I posted it twice because at 1st when I checked after posting it I couldn't find it so I posted it in another section... but then I also found it in previous section... actually I have also posted this in anti virus section but it's still not appeared there.. may be because of some temporary problem... I didn't know that..

by JonathanT on 4. July 2008 - 13:55  (3555)

Hi

Testing signature scanners against SSTS does not makes sense because SSTS does not actually harm the system.

AV-test is a respected organisation which tests anti-viruses against real malware, and Rising scores quite high (around 95% for malware and spyware). Compared to Antivir which is around 99% and AVG Avast is usually around 97% to 98%.

But Rising also has a light and effective HIPS, which the others don't have.

by Anonymous on 5. July 2008 - 21:33  (3607)

Hi
Did you ever try SSTS from matousec? it's not safe to try it..." SSTS does not actually harm the system." is not true.. because I tried it and it has done lots of harm to my system.. I lost one of the important file from windows registry because of it's infection... I wont dare to try it again in future....

by JonathanT on 6. July 2008 - 1:52  (3622)

Hi

I haven't tried SSTS myself, but I believe it's not malware. It is just leaktests. Are you sure you weren't also infected by real malware too? Or you were running a registry cleaner or something?

But the main point is, you can't judge Rising AV by SSTS.

by Anonymous on 7. July 2008 - 4:34  (3708)

Hi
I don't no whether it's because of registry cleaner or SSTS.... but it happened after I tested my laptop's security with SSTS... I had to reinstall my windows xp... thank God that I had a recovery CD for windows Xp and I had backed up all my data... some windows file was corrupted and that's why I was even not able to turn on my laptop.. it took 2 days to solve my issue... I have solved it just now... it's better not to take risk or at least be ready with back up and recovery CD if something wrong happens....

by Anonymous on 3. July 2008 - 21:12  (3512)

Hello Steve, I was away a few days because of problems with my ISP, but I have also liked the review. I do understand it's a work-in-progress, but I would like to know:

- If you had any system files infected?

- If both SAS or MBAM where able to completely disinfect them?

- If they needed a reboot to do so?

- If after malware removal you where always able to boot?, where there any system files removed by mistake by SAS or MBAM?

- I believe you had the anti-malware pre-installed in the VM, so you don't know if any one of those nasties would prevent it's installation?

- What where those 3 aditional samples that Ad-aware detected?, cookies? - I'm getting rid of Ad-aware or not...?

- I understant why you use Linux for testing, but do you think we can safely transpose your advice to a Windows environment? Ubunto is so different of XP or Vista...

by Steve Hargreaves on 4. July 2008 - 22:13  (3572)

Hi
Sorry it's taken a while to reply. My ISP has suffered an attack which brought services to a halt. (something of an irony).

To answer:

As far as I can tell - I had no critical system files infected.
SAS and MBAM between them cleaned the system (with minor, non-critical exceptions)
SAS required a reboot - which I assume was down to the fake anti spyware product requiring registry entry removals
I had no problem rebooting after cleansing.
The anti-malware was NOT pre-installed. Part of my testing relied upon being able to install the software after infection (which is what the less experienced are likely to do). Without exception, they all installed, though it is worth mentioning that I had at least one Google hijack, meaning I had to type the address in directly to download the anti-malware rather than grabbing it through Google.
Re the three additional infections found by AdAware - I'll have to get back to you with details. I'll re-test the infected system to identify them. After round two of testing, I didn't test with AdAware - so I expect the infections are still there. However, to answer your question, whilst not outstanding, AdAware did earn a respectable 3rd place in my tests, and in my opinion, is worth hanging on to.

The beauty of anti-malware is that they will rarely conflict with each other, and so keeping AdAware installed is not going to hurt.

Since I am using a VM running XP SP2 (I deliberately didn't install SP3 since it isn't a forced download) my personal belief and experience is that all but a small minority of malware will be aware of the VM, and will behave as normal. I don't believe that the test results are compromised.

It may be worth highlighting here that this is an anti malware (rather than anti virus) article, and as such, I have not installed any anti-virus on the test machine. If I did, I may well find that I have several virus infections as well. I appreciate that the distinction is vague at best. For anti-virus I would recommend hopping over to http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-anti-virus-software.htm where you will find a dedicated category. In our different tests we have experienced different results, but that simply demonstrates that some software is more effective against different threats.

I would NEVER recommend running a system without adequate anti-virus and anti-malware tools (though as a general rule of thumb, you only want one anti-virus utility installed and active), and a firewall, whether it be hardware or software. You can read more about firewalls at http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-firewall.htm.

Steve

by Anonymous on 5. July 2008 - 12:21  (3584)

Thanks for the reply. I'm still having problems with ISP but mine are due to poor broadband infrastructure, real pain in the ass. Yesterday they recommended me to flush DNS and virtual memory, as a result I had to do a startup repair. Windows couldn't repair the installation, so I discovered, the hard way, that system restore doesn't keep your program settings, leaving me with a useless machine and all the hard work to be done from scratch. System restore sucks. I'm glad I have a HD image, but from now on I'll backup more frequently.

Anyway, so your gest was SP2? This is OK then. I'll stick with SAS and MBAM, I do have good AV, firewall and hips in place, thanks for suggesting. I was asking if you could safely transpose the results simply because you said in other post you where using Ubunto not to compromise the host.

Cheers

by JonathanT on 5. July 2008 - 1:48  (3576)

Hi

"I would NEVER recommend running a system without adequate anti-virus and anti-malware tools (though as a general rule of thumb, you only want one anti-virus utility installed and active), and a firewall, whether it be hardware or software. You can read more about firewalls at http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-firewall.htm."

I believe this is not true, as many users run many different security setups without signature scanners and do not get infected. For example, some users just run a policy sandbox and a behavioral blocker.

Though for most people, signature scanners is a good way to verify files. I just think NEVER is too strong a word.

by Steve Hargreaves on 1. July 2008 - 19:27  (3418)

OK - I'm publishing the revision, though please treat this as a work in progress for the moment. I still have some software to test (not mentioned in the revision, yet), and will need to edit the article itself (for one thing, it's too long). I also plan on re-testing some of the software that was disappointing in my original tests.

I'm happy to listen to criticism, if you think I have something very wrong, but as I said, please bear in mind this is a work in progress at the moment.

Steve

by Lusher on 6. July 2008 - 5:45  (3630)

The current version while not perfect is greatly improved. As many have written the currently 2 leaders are SAS and MBAM and *finally* your review reflects that.

In fact, I'm kinda of surprised your informal test managed to show that given the relatively small sample size.

"I also plan on re-testing some of the software that was disappointing in my original tests."

*Only* those that were disappointing? Hmm, seems like you are unfairly giving those "disappointing" entries a second shot (might those include your favourites that did badly?)

"Surprisingly, despite being much maligned of late, AdAware 2008 came third in my tests, finding 86 of the original threats and finding 3 that both SAS and Malwarebytes had ignored, suggesting that the former champion isn’t quite prepared to roll over dead just yet."

Personally i think this is overstating matters. Even the worst product will find a few samples the best don't, that isn't as big a deal as you think it is.

by Steve Hargreaves on 8. July 2008 - 18:29  (3828)

Hi there, and sorry for taking my time to reply. Your comment had got pushed into the second page and I missed it.

To address your specific points, the reason for re-testing disappointing entries is quite simply to see if the relatively restricted sample was a contributory factor. In particular, A-Squared has a loyal and enthusiastic following, although it performed extremely poorly in my tests. As a consequence, I have to conclude that the test was not fully representative for that particular product. As for "favourites" - they are the ones that did best in my tests. I have no allegiance to any of the products available, and simply want what many others want (i.e. effective security).

I have never been an A-Squared user myself, though I have over the years used a variety of products (usually changing when I felt installed protection was no longer doing it's job well enough). I was sufficiently impressed by SAS and MBAM that they now protect my own machines.

And, of course, in further testing, both SAS and MBAM will be used to verify results, which means repeat testing should still be considered completely objective and fair.

The point with AdAware was that, on the uncleaned system, it found an impressive 50% of the original infections. Recent reports elsewhere suggest that AdAware's detection rate has fallen much lower than that in recent years. The only products to show higher detection rates were SAS and MBAM. With continuing development, there does still seem to be a place for AdAware (though it has been replaced on my system by the aforementioned winners).

Steve

by Anonymous on 2. July 2008 - 3:08  (3438)

Steve,

Since you consider Windows Defender an "increasingly effective malware scanner and real time protection utility, and a worthy addition to your arsenal" would you mind posting the test results? I'm sure that a lot of folks would also be interested in seeing how Spyware Doctor Starter Edition fared since it uses 1/3 of the intelli-signatures found in the pay version.

Thanks,
John

by Steve Hargreaves on 2. July 2008 - 19:31  (3464)

Hi. Actually - if I'm honest - my comment about Windows Defender was based on live experience, though after your post I re-ran the tests on the test machine using Windows Defender to get some stats. After this, I'm uninstalling it from my system, since I don't see the benefit. After checking with SuperAntiSpyware to ensure that I had a nicely infected system (note, checking - not cleaning), I let Windows Defender check. SA found 159 infections this time (including the good old rogue spyware remover, bothering me with popups again), whilst Defender found - none. Defender simply pronounced the test system clean, despite the fact that I was watching popup after popup appear while Defender was telling me how lucky I am.

Needless to say - I will be removing the recommendation.

As for Spyware Doctor SE - owing to time constraints I hadn't tested it in the original roundup, though I have as a part of the latest test. Unfortunately, SD only found 50 of the 159 infections - and despite claiming to have removed them, after the obligatory reboot, they were still there. I should mention that the evaluation version of the full SD did better on scanning, detecting 89 of the threats, though since I hadn't registered it, I was unable to test it's removal.

Another thing I would add about SD is that I also found the program to be unstable, hanging at the start of a scan, which could only be cured by a reboot. SD also issued me with warnings when trying to scan in safe mode, which worries me a little considering that sufficiently infected systems will only be able to boot into safe mode. After the warning, the scan proceeded as expected, though the results were much the same.

Steve

by JonathanT on 2. July 2008 - 2:24  (3432)

Hi

Great review!

But did you test the products in VMWare? I heard some people say that some malware act differently because they detect it is a virtualised environment.

And I think you should give more emphasis on ThreatFire, many people believe it is an outstanding product.

Thanks

by Steve Hargreaves on 2. July 2008 - 19:36  (3465)

I actually ran the test in VirtualBox running on Ubuntu. I have been warned that some malware can break out of a VM, and so felt safer ensuring that the host environment was as inhospitable as possible to any rogue software.

Whilst I have no doubt that some malware can detect and adapt to running in a virtual machine, this cannot be said of all malware, and much of what I contracted appeared to be going about it's (undesirable) business as usual. With that in mind, I do not believe that testing in a VM in any way invalidates the results.

I will probably give a little more space to both ThreatFire and BOClean when I start tidying up the whole article, hopefully this weekend. The intention was not to publish until I had what I considered to be a finished article, though since I'd announced the re-write was coming, people were getting impatient, hence the early publication.

Steve

by Anonymous on 1. July 2008 - 2:23  (3377)

With regard to a good anti-spyware programme, based on my personal experience I would say that SpyBot Search and Destroy is much better than Ad-Aware, Microsoft's Windows Defender, or even Spyware Terminator. I would also say that Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is a very good programme that is getting better from version to version. My top personal choice however would be ZoneAlarm Anti-Spyware which is a shareware, but it is the cheapest one in the market, only 20$ annual registration fee and it is really worth it. There are several functioning components: firewall, program control, anti-spyware, spysite blocking, quarantine, anti-virus monitoring, email protection, alerts and logs, etc. I have been using it along with Avira Anti-virus Personal Edition for over 18 months now and I haven't had any problems. It defends you against spyware, and even if any spyware manages to break through the firewall, it won't escape to a subsequent scan which is thorough and will remove it completely. I strongly recommend it. And just to feel even safer you can use it along with one of the other freeware programmes, either Spybot, Ad-Aware, Superantispyware or Spyware Terminator. Good luck.
Adanacs

by JonathanT on 1. July 2008 - 3:07  (3379)

Hi

Well from many many other people's personal experiences and in every recent test/review, Spybot is not what it used to be.

I agree, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is progressing.

ZoneAlarm is shareware, so obviously is cannot be recommended here.

Anyway, the editor of this page, Steve, is currently writing a new review that includes a test he did.

by Anonymous on 24. June 2008 - 19:46  (3039)

I think we need more free anti spyware here, only three? you got like 5 or six with firewalls. i'm just saying that there might be things even better than what we got here, i have been looking around and found some but i'm not good at testing out software nor am i set up to. (I am a Home user) i can list them here for ya, if any are fake, oops... well here is the list. These are coming from friends who are want-to-be techs. like my self lol.

Tenebril Spy Catcher Express (never heard of it)
EMCO Malware Destroyer (this looks strange...)
Comodo BOClean (all my friends use this, looks ok.)
WinCleaner AntiSpyware (only a few know of this in my area.)
ArovaxShield (alex says it rocks but i think its a wanna be firewall lol.)
SpywareGuard (is it just me or is this really out of date?)
Spy-Ad Exterminator (looks like spyware to me)
Doctor Alex Antispyware ( alex just found this...)
Spy Cleaner Lite ( a lot of people here use this...)
AIO Security Manager 1.0 (one of my friends use this but i don't think its a antispyware)
X Spyware Scan 3.2 ( Looks like a shield to me)

this is what is used here in my city here... the only thing that looks ok is BoClean... you all are far more smarter then me when it comes to this kind of thing and a lot of people ask me to help them out and what is best or near best to use. and what real and not real... so i thought i would ask you all because i have no idea. thanks!

by Anonymous on 25. June 2008 - 12:38  (3072)

I can see 9 anti-spywares mentioned... although MRT is mistaken and should be corrected soon.

by JonathanT on 25. June 2008 - 9:17  (3066)

Hi

Firstly already five, not three, reputable anti-spywares are mentioned on this page, and they are the best free ones. Generally it is better to stick with trusted vendors when you pick from security software - particularly for signature scanners. Out of your list, Comodo BoClean is rspected but it is more of an anti-trojan. SpywareGuard comes from a trusted company but it is a basic HIPS and as you say, has not been updated for more than 3 years. The others are quite dodgy - some of them seem rogue and they are all too unknown.

by Anonymous on 24. June 2008 - 3:48  (3003)

Does anyone have information on "Spyzooka"? Promises to eliminate 100% of spyware...

Gizmo's Freeware is Recruiting!

Gizmos Needs YouShare your knowledge of free software with millions of Gizmo's readers by joining our editing team.  Details here.