Highlighted
Tech Savvy Not
1 Copper

Spyware Blaster

I cannot Immunize with Spy-ware Blaster even  though I have "Administrator" rights.  A few days ago I could not do this and when I logged on to check it they were now Immunized. I ran an update and now they will not Immunize.  Any fixes for this?

0 Kudos
12 Replies
joe53
5 Tungsten

Re: Spyware Blaster

Hi Tech Savvy Not:

Which operating system and service pack (if any) are you using?

I'm assuming you have the latest version of SpywareBlaster 4.2. If not, please advise.

Are you having any problems with your computer otherwise?

What other security programs are you using? (antivirus, antispyware, security suites). Can you successfully update them?

_________________________________________


Dell Forum Member since 2,000


 Use OpenDNS   MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware Free


Windows 7/sp1 (64- Bit): Malwarebytes 3.x Premium, Windows Firewall, WinPatrol PLUS, Emsisoft Emergency Kit Free and HitmanPro Free (on-demand scanners), OpenDNS, MVPS Hosts file, SpywareBlaster, Pale Moon web browser, Sandboxie, CCleaner Free.


Windows 10 Pro (64- Bit): Same protection plus Windows Defender AV.


"In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes" - Banksy

0 Kudos
control_tps
2 Iron

Re: Spyware Blaster

Hello Tech Savvy Not,

I found this information from Wilders Security Forum, apparently somebody has the same issue after the update of SpywareBlaster.  This individual has an Online Armor as firewall.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=267625

 

Below I have quoted Javacool.  Hopefully this will help.

"Hi,

Based on Online Armor's documentation, it looks like the "Run Safer" functionality causes applications to run with limited rights.

Since SpywareBlaster requires administrator privileges, this was effectively preventing SpywareBlaster from implementing its protection (by restricting its access to various parts of the system).

Just make sure "Run Safer" mode is OFF for SpywareBlaster, and you should be good to go.

Best regards,

-Javacool"

 

Window 7 64-bit, KIS 2013, MBAM, Superantispyware, WinPatrol, Secunia, CCleaner, Safe Run, & SpywareBlaster. Firefox with WOT[:D]
0 Kudos
joe53
5 Tungsten

Re: Spyware Blaster

Note that SpywareBlaster is not recommended, nor necessary, for Vista users, according to this post, by Michael Burgess, MS MVP- Internet Security.

_________________________________________


Dell Forum Member since 2,000


 Use OpenDNS   MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware Free


Windows 7/sp1 (64- Bit): Malwarebytes 3.x Premium, Windows Firewall, WinPatrol PLUS, Emsisoft Emergency Kit Free and HitmanPro Free (on-demand scanners), OpenDNS, MVPS Hosts file, SpywareBlaster, Pale Moon web browser, Sandboxie, CCleaner Free.


Windows 10 Pro (64- Bit): Same protection plus Windows Defender AV.


"In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes" - Banksy

0 Kudos
Bugbatter
6 Gallium

Re: Spyware Blaster

That post at COU is almost 3 years old. Is Mike still a MSMVP ?

It may not be necessary for newer OS, but concerns regarding SB are probably better handled by javacool, the developer of SB in the official forum at Wilders.


Windows Insider MVP 2016 -

Microsoft MVP - Consumer Security 2006-2016

Social Media and Community Professional

0 Kudos
joe53
5 Tungsten

Re: Spyware Blaster

That post at COU is almost 3 years old. Is Mike still a MSMVP ?

It may not be necessary for newer OS, but concerns regarding SB are probably better handled by javacool, the developer of SB in the official forum at Wilders.

I agree that link to Burgess's opinion is dated, and I have no idea on his current MVP status.

However, as he was involved in the implementation of the MVPS Hosts file website, I tend to still give his opinion considerable credence. I'm not sure his arguments no longer apply.

That said, as I look at the MVPS page where he once advised against using SB with Vista, I no longer see this caution: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/unwanted.htm

I will make some enquiries over at Wilders.

_________________________________________


Dell Forum Member since 2,000


 Use OpenDNS   MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware Free


Windows 7/sp1 (64- Bit): Malwarebytes 3.x Premium, Windows Firewall, WinPatrol PLUS, Emsisoft Emergency Kit Free and HitmanPro Free (on-demand scanners), OpenDNS, MVPS Hosts file, SpywareBlaster, Pale Moon web browser, Sandboxie, CCleaner Free.


Windows 10 Pro (64- Bit): Same protection plus Windows Defender AV.


"In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes" - Banksy

0 Kudos
dalem29
4 Germanium

Re: Spyware Blaster

I have used both Spybot S&D and Spyware Blaster on a Vista machine for some time now with no problems. I do notice that it take the former 5-10 seconds to load, which is not a concern.

0 Kudos
joe53
5 Tungsten

Re: Spyware Blaster

Thanks Dale.

From what I've seen, there is no doubt that Vista supports SB.

What I am trying to determine is whether SB adds any protective value to Vista or Win7.

_________________________________________


Dell Forum Member since 2,000


 Use OpenDNS   MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware Free


Windows 7/sp1 (64- Bit): Malwarebytes 3.x Premium, Windows Firewall, WinPatrol PLUS, Emsisoft Emergency Kit Free and HitmanPro Free (on-demand scanners), OpenDNS, MVPS Hosts file, SpywareBlaster, Pale Moon web browser, Sandboxie, CCleaner Free.


Windows 10 Pro (64- Bit): Same protection plus Windows Defender AV.


"In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes" - Banksy

0 Kudos
Not applicable

Re: Spyware Blaster

Just my opinion FWIW, but I agree that the immunization function offered by Spywareblaster (and Spybot) or any browser protection methods that rely on blacklisting have become obsolete, at least on modern systems (Vista, W7). There's just too many malicious domains appearing every single day for these programs to keep up. Besides, the rate of which these websites come and go leaves a lot of the blacklisted sites already dead.

In addition, this thread at Wilders has some very convincing arguments that the use of a Hosts File is probably a redundant method of security as well.

 


The immunization feature offered by SpyBot is not required to browse safely with Internet Explorer 8.  IE8 includes more reliable protections against malicious sites, including per-site ActiveX, ActiveX opt-in, DEP/NX, Protected Mode, and SmartScreen Filter.

Blocking a static list of sites using Zones is fundamentally a losing game, because (as phishers have demonstrated for years) attackers can simply deliver malicious attacks from new domains or IP addresses.

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-final-available-now.aspx#9497032

 

There are much more effective channels now available for browser protection such as sandboxing/ virtualization. Many vendors such as Kaspersky, Avast, Comodo and Online Armor have recognized this and have already begun to implement this technology into their products. Even IE8 with its Protected Mode and Chromium build browsers (Google Chrome, SRWare's Iron etc.) have light sandboxing functionality, with Firefox 4 also rumored to follow suit.

 

 

0 Kudos
Bugbatter
6 Gallium

Re: Spyware Blaster

Posted today by javacool:

"...So while Windows Vista/7 is undoubtably more secure than Windows XP, and has less of a critical need for certain parts of SpywareBlaster's protection, those protections are still just as effective at blocking out the bad/unwanted stuff.

It's up to you, of course, whether you want to block that stuff. But I generally err on the side of multiple, sensible layers of security. If one fails, the others still have a chance to keep anything unwanted out. And SpywareBlaster's about as low-maintenance, no-nonsense as they come..."

Complete reply is here:  http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1648949&postcount=4


Windows Insider MVP 2016 -

Microsoft MVP - Consumer Security 2006-2016

Social Media and Community Professional

0 Kudos