I know that CIS imcludes CAV.
I use Spybot SD. Is detection of spyware included in CAV ?
Yes. You may want to turn of real-time scanning in Spybot (if available) and just use it for manual scanning. CIS also has buffer overflow protection if you decide to use the Defense+ feature.
Spybot can find something CAV misses even if Comodo antivirus has a lot more baddies in its database…
So you can use it as ondemand…
Since CIS got D+ no realtime is needed from Spybot, (even if you could do the immunize thing).
D+ is much more powerful (at least if handeled correctly)… 
:-TU
Spybot is fairly useless these days. There are much better alternatives such as Super Anti Spyware and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware.
Spybot has a lot of catching up to do.
Do you have tests to support this? This is no flame bait. I am just curious to how Spybot performs when comparing to it’s peers.
Same with ad-aware, even though i think ad-aware is actuelly doing better then spybot atm.
But they are both not very good anymore, they where for some years ago, they need to get better at both detecting and removing.
And no i don’t have any reliable tests to prove this.
Are you sure?
Years ago I gave Spybot a heck of a try. I found, back then, it didn’t even update. And It’s file shredder, back then, didn’t shred anything but my time. Maybe it’s changed, I’ll never know.
Wierd, I never had an issue with it updating…
I feel pretty confident it “can” find something CAVs misses, not saying it usually will. It just have to have one signature CAVs lacks to be able to detect something CAVS misses… ;D :-TU
Personally I skip on-demands however…
=/
Probably true, A2 is a nice on demand as well… =)
True, even though i don’t like them after their current test. it was very misleading about how good SAS and MBAM are…
Right, my experience was yrs ago. I’m sure things have changed, one way or the other. It’s not beyond me to use a pgm incorrectly, maybe that’s the reason for the poor results.
But to hold you to the fire, you claim Spybot will catch things Comodo misses. You say that maybe, your not to sure, but pretty confident, it will. Prove it.
Every program that uses the blacklisting technique (antiviruses do) will miss something. And anything with a fair number of signatures will probably detect something CIS doesn’t. It could take a long time to prove it though, as finding the right samples and testing them can be difficult.
BTW, Spybot will most likely not catch everything that CIS misses. Just a few.
That is why the AV technique is outdated. 88)
But does it matter?
I scanned a old computer with CIS and later Spybot “surprisingly” it found a “inactive” key-logger missed by CAVS.
However I sent the sample to comodo, so I guess its not that way anymore…
Ill see when I get home if I have any sample missed by CIS but found by spybot… =)
THX a lot for your answers !
Do someone knows a site where several spyware programms are tested and rated ?
No, but if you find one say so, i have only seen useless ones.
No, it dosen’t.
Sorry for this worthless bump, but you deserved an answer.
Nope, no tests to support it. Just personal experience.
CIS can detect spyware.
But it can’t immunzine , Scan Registry and detect Tracking Cookies.
immunzine is worthless against the harder malware…
I don’t hope CIS ever get that function, as i think it’s worthless.
+1
Not to mention that the way Spybot immunizes is a bit dubious. (Adding URL’s to your HOSTS file) In Win XP and Vista, a HOSTS file larger than 135KB generally slows down the machine unless you disable the DNS Client service. I think the current Spybot immunization list gives you a 650KB HOSTS file.
What does the immunize actual do??