SpywareBlaster

[dallen]

Is SpywareBlaster still effective, or has it been surpassed by other anti-spyware programs on the market to the extent that having it on a system provides little or no additional protection?

The question assumes that the relative effectiveness of SpywareBlaster is being measured on a system that already has a top anti-spyware program (i.e. SpySweeper, SUPERAntiSpyware, etc.) actively running.

In other words, I want to know if you think a system benefits from adding SpywareBlaster to a system already being protected by another anti-spyware solution.

Thank you for your input!!!

Feel free to qualify your vote by adding your reasoning.

[Long View]

I'm not really sure that SpywareBlaster ever was effective nor for that matter are any of the other anti-spyware programs that people seem to love to load up on a "the more programs I have the better" basis.

Get a hardware Firewall
Use Firefox with no scripts
add an anti-virus program if you must
when the system is known to be clean make a system image.

Use on demand programs to check if it makes you feel more secure. Unless you are opening attchments you shouldn't or downloading crap then you should stay clean.

Alternately - load up with as many of the latest gimmick programs as you can find and watch you machine slow down to the point where you need a new faster machine which you will then be able to cripple with even more security.

[lucas1985]

I can affirm that SpywareBlaster might reduce the number of spyware infections. I install SWB in systems of people who are careless about security. Without SWB, they call me every week for a cleanup. With SWB, the calls are much less frequent and the infections are more benign.

[twl845]

I have been using SpywareBlaster for a few years now. How do I tell if it works if I have practically no spyware. If I do a scan with any of my anti-spyware apps like Ad-Aware, I never catch more than 2 or 3 data miners. Am I just lucky, or is SpywareBlaster doing its job? :-\

[ThunderZ]

It was one of the first AS`s I learned about many moons ago. With 0 resource usage for real time protection and only 3.10 MB disk space usage, I will continue to use it.

[~*Nat*~]

I too noticed less "disruptions" ever since I have SB installed 2 yrs ago.

I believe otherwise this pc would have been 'fried' a long time ago...just like my other ones I used to have. :-\

SB is of great help imo. ;)

[mercurie]

-{ Quote: "It was one of the first AS`s I learned about many moons ago. With 0 resource usage for real time protection and only 3.10 MB disk space usage, I will continue to use it." }-I have had it only a very short time. But this was pretty much what I thought too. So why not. How often are updates put out for increases in it's data base?

[ThunderZ]

-{ Quote: "I have had it only a very short time. But this was pretty much what I thought too. So why not. How often are updates put out for increases in it's data base?" }-


I can not answer that one. Less frequently then AVs` and other ASs`. However there was one within the last 10 days, so it is still supported.

[Long View]

Difficult to know whether SpywareBlaster is working - Does it indicate if it has stopped something ? or is it just a matter of belief ? I did use it until a couple of years ago and have not missed it. Perhaps if I used IE ?
As to it using zero resources in real time - I'll take that as "I haven't noticed any slow down" and that's the problem with security - little by little it gets added, one program after another, and slowly but imperceptibly machines start to slow.

[snowbound]

As to a resource issue, SWB is not a running application so none should be noticed. As far as updating, seems it's about every 2 weeks or so.




snowbound

[lucas1985]

-{ Quote: "As to it using zero resources in real time - I'll take that as "I haven't noticed any slow down" and that's the problem with security - little by little it gets added, one program after another, and slowly but imperceptibly machines start to slow." }-
SWB only adds registry keys and values. It hasn´t any running process, service, thread, driver, etc.
For testing: use VMware, create two copies of XP SP1 and install SWB in only one VM. Surf with IE to the dark side in both machines and compare the results.

[twl845]

What's it going to hurt, even if it did nothing. It just sits there. I'm going to assume it helps. ;D

[~*Nat*~]

-{ Quote: "What's it going to hurt, even if it did nothing. It just sits there. I'm going to assume it helps. ;D" }-

;D Now, that is thee most positive outlook in this new year I've heard so far !

And besides this: SB not only protects you when you surf with IE but also it supports Firefox addicts, like me. :-*

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "SWB only adds registry keys and values. It hasn´t any running process, service, thread, driver, etc.
For testing: use VMware, create two copies of XP SP1 and install SWB in only one VM. Surf with IE to the dark side in both machines and compare the results." }-


Thanks to those who have pointed out that SWB hasn't any real overhead.
I guess the real reason why I have survived without it for a few years is the dull
life I lead -- no dark side for me

[mercurie]

ThunderZ and Snowbound, thanks for your responses. every two weeks is fine I think for the average person for a free zero to very low resource useage, prevention vs clean, antispyware product like the free SpywareBlaster. :thumb:

Longview, your life is probably more lively then you think. Everyone always thinks they are more boring then the other guy or girl. Sorry to drift off topic but to much risk behavior sometimes results in a lot of pain later. Now bringing this around to pc security again... unless you enjoy study of malware, testing, and cleaning machines you can afford to get infected the average pc user is better taking a careful approach. ;)

[Long View]

-{ Quote: " average pc user is better taking a careful approach. ;)" }-


I agree but there is a tendency to think that this means loading as many security programs as can be afforded and then loading all the free ones as well.

I think the average pc user would be better advised to:

(1) Get a hardware Firewall i.e throw away the "free" modem supplied and spend some money on a reasonable router/firewall.
(2) Use Firefox with no scripts
(3) throw in one anti-virus program - better still subscribe to a email company that scans emails.
(4) load windows Defender.

[mercurie]

Oh yea, I think you can see by my set up in my sig. I pretty much agree with you. By the way I am behind a Router as well. I totally agree on that one. Get that hardware firewall. ;)

I never use AdWatch in AdAware boy was that a waste of $$. :(

[Bubba]

To All:

As this is the Spywareblaster Support forum We ask that any other anti-malware program discussion be accomplished in our other anti-malware software (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35) forum.

As such some ot posts were removed and placed in this thread (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=161677) which was created for that non Spywareblaster discussion.
_____________________________________________
-{ Quote: "I'm not really sure that SpywareBlaster ever was effective....Difficult to know whether SpywareBlaster is working - Does it indicate if it has stopped something ?" }-It's true Spywareblaster itself does not offer a popup indication but since the majority of the protection is for IE....a user of Spywareblaster would see either an ActiveX warning or Restricted Sites indicator for any entry found in SB's database. -{ Quote: "Perhaps if I used IE ?" }-Excluding the Firefox\Mozilla Cookie protection....the majority of the protection is for Internet Explorer or certain browsers that utilize the Internet Explorer engine as noted in this FAQ (http://www.javacoolsoftware.info/kb/idx/9/062/article/).

At the end of the day "SpywareBlaster provides a powerful layer of protection against spyware and other potentially unwanted software. It is proven and trusted."

Bubba