Spybot vs SpywareBlaster

[John Brock]

When I use the "Immunize" function of Spybot it tells me that all
known bad products are blocked, and it adds that "If you want more
control on ActiveX protection, we recommend JavaCools SpywareBlaster".
The impression this gives is Immunize does the same thing that
SpywareBlaster does, and that the only reason to use SpywareBlaster
is if you want finer control (which we don't).

Is this impression correct? What do I gain by using SpywareBlaster
if I am not interesting in making fine distinctions, and all I want
to do is block as much as possible without breaking normal Windows
functionality?

 

[madmax]

When I use the "Immunize" function of Spybot it tells me that all
known bad products are blocked, and it adds that "If you want more
control on ActiveX protection, we recommend JavaCools SpywareBlaster".
The impression this gives is Immunize does the same thing that
SpywareBlaster does, and that the only reason to use SpywareBlaster
is if you want finer control (which we don't).

Is this impression correct? What do I gain by using SpywareBlaster
if I am not interesting in making fine distinctions, and all I want
to do is block as much as possible without breaking normal Windows
functionality?

You can't depend on one program to keep you safe.There are so many new
virus,worm,trojan,ect.,that it is hard to keep up.A multi-layered
approach is best.I use spybot along with spyware guard and
blaster,script defender,swat-it,and win patrol all at the same time.
Also have ad-aware,crap cleaner,script sentry installed and use
Thunderbird for mail with Firefox as main browser.
I have not lost any functionality using them except perhaps a small
slowdown which is hardly noticeable(broadband connection)
It's not a "fine tune" as much as one program might miss what the other
will catch.
See my site for info and links.
-max

--
To help you stay safe see: http://www.geocities.com/maxpro4u/madmax.html
This message is virus free as far as I can tell.
Change nomail.afraid.org to neo.rr.com so you can reply
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in Usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

 

[polly]

spybot & spywareblaster are different programs with different functions,
read the label on the tin for explanation & use both anyway.

"without breaking normal Windows functionality?"

If that is your aim then best not use it. If windows 'normal' functionality
was any good then you would not be using spybot would you? think about it...

....or switch to firefox

 

[null]

When I use the "Immunize" function of Spybot it tells me that all
known bad products are blocked, and it adds that "If you want more
control on ActiveX protection, we recommend JavaCools SpywareBlaster".
The impression this gives is Immunize does the same thing that
SpywareBlaster does, and that the only reason to use SpywareBlaster
is if you want finer control (which we don't).

Is this impression correct? What do I gain by using SpywareBlaster
if I am not interesting in making fine distinctions, and all I want
to do is block as much as possible without breaking normal Windows
functionality?

Blocking as much as possible is accomplished either through IE
security settings or the use of a alternate browser. I've never found
any need for Spybot's Immunize function (or any of the many blockers
and blocking schemes) in the first place.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[John Brock]

spybot & spywareblaster are different programs with different functions,
read the label on the tin for explanation & use both anyway.

"without breaking normal Windows functionality?"

If that is your aim then best not use it. If windows 'normal' functionality
was any good then you would not be using spybot would you? think about it...

By "normal functionality" I just mean things like being able to send
e-mail and buy stuff on the Web. I don't want to break things like that.

...or switch to firefox

I have installed Mozilla 1.7, and given strict instructions never
to use Internet Explorer unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Leo M. Cavanaugh III]

By "normal functionality" I just mean things like being able to send
e-mail and buy stuff on the Web. I don't want to break things like that.

Neither running SpywareBlaster (properly updated) nor SpyBot's immunize
function (also properly updated) will impede your email or buying things on
the Web or anything else. All they do is set (turn on) the kill bit of
various malware, so that Windows will never load or execute them.

I have installed Mozilla 1.7, and given strict instructions never
to use Internet Explorer unless absolutely necessary.

Ah, you are wise, my son. I say that just because you agree with me.
Likeable browser, is it not?

 

[bassbag]

Neither running SpywareBlaster (properly updated) nor SpyBot's immunize
function (also properly updated) will impede your email or buying things on
the Web or anything else. All they do is set (turn on) the kill bit of
various malware, so that Windows will never load or execute them.


Ah, you are wise, my son. I say that just because you agree with me.
Likeable browser, is it not?

Doesnt spywareblaster and spybot also set various sites into IEs restricted
sites zone and therfore possibly restrict certain websites that you may wish
to visit , if you didnt know they were there?
me

 

[Barry]

Try this site. Adware/Spyware reports on which are the best and what
they offer.

http://www.adwarereport.com/mt/archives/000004.html

 

[Dick M.]

The report doesn't mention SpywareBlaster.
Dick


Try this site. Adware/Spyware reports on which are the best and what
they offer.

http://www.adwarereport.com/mt/archives/000004.html

 

[Papa Joe]

I do not agree with the write up on Spybot---except for the fact that
it is free.

It detects much more than listed, seems to have run and installed
without a hitch on XP systems and seems to flat out work!

The same for Adaware SE, Personal Edition.

Don' t know about the rest of the report.


FWIW
Joe