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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well I see both Bb and ky beat me to the punch on Javacool's response at Wilders re: SB.

As always, I defer to the real-life experience of those who actually use it, whose comments in that thread (like Dale's) reported no problems or slowdowns in Vista/7 by SB. Just how much extra protective value is added is moot. (Ads/tracking cookies in Firefox aren't that much of a concern to me).
------------------------------------------

I tend to agree somewhat with RD's comments; do I really need all of the immunizations, restricted sites, IP blocklists, Hosts file, etc using IE8, Sandboxie, a router and a firewall with HIPS? I suspect not, but I use them as long as they cause me no problems.

Like ky, I like redundancy when it comes to protection (especially with XP).

concerning redundancy:

having only used XP and earlier operating systems, I take the view that use of redundant layers of protection is reasonable, provided one does not notice any slowdowns in their computer's response.

SpyBot intentionally uses a redundant collection of defenses, on the basis that, if malware (successfully) attacks one, hopefully the other(s) will "survive" to offer you protection.

-------------------------

concerning static vs. dynamic blocking techniques:

There is no doubt that continually morphing domain-names can defeat static blocking lists (be they in the restricted sites, or a hosts file)... so i agree that static approaches, by themselves, offer insufficient protection in today's environment.   But that's not to say they offer no protection... they still offer some... and as stated at the outset, I will continue to use them (SpyBot, SpywareBlaster) until such time as I believe they're slowing down my system.

But yes, we must indeed rely more keenly on the modern/dynamic technologies, such as are offered in, for example, IE8's SmartScreen Filter.

------------------------

concerning the purpose/use of a hosts file:

Finally, on the matter of a hosts file, keep in mind that it is typically used not only for security --- to block malware --- but also, to block hundreds (thousands) of known advertisements from being displayed... by virtue of which, many web pages load faster.

=============

EDIT:   While I was composing this response, i see that BB got in a post quoting Javacool... upon reading his fuller comments (in the link cited), I believe that he makes many of the same points I made here.

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

Yes,  SB up to date and no other issues with my computer or others like SSD, McAfee and so on.  Use W7.