Spywareblaster & Spybot on Vista query

I remember reading (possibly on these forums somewhere) quite a while back that if you use the Spybot "immunization" feature, Spywareblaster wasn't so useful or even relevant compared to if you didn't use Spybot at all.

I also remember reading something about that if you are using Vista, Spywareblaster was proven to slow down your browsing for some reason?

Can anyone shed any light on my queries?

 

Hi,

There is some duplication of protection between SpywareBlaster and Spybot's immunization (i.e. they cover some of the same items), but there is also a considerable level of non-overlap.

Since the nature of the protection is that it doesn't cost you anything (doesn't run in the background, take up memory or CPU), there's no problem with enabling both.

(Note, however: Spybot offers certain protection for Firefox and other similar browsers that isn't necessary if you keep the default settings in those browsers. Specifically, since Firefox blocks pop-ups and installs by default, enabling Spybot's protection in those categories is not really necessary, and results in many unneeded block entries.)

No need to worry - it won't. The latest version of SpywareBlaster was built for, and has been extensively tested with, Vista.

I hope the above helps.

Best regards,

-Javacool

 

Thanks for the detailed answer!

To finally clear up my performance-related worries, is it Spybot or SpywareBlaster that adds a zillion entries to the restricted zone?

Surely every time you visit a webpage, this entire list has to be checked which must impact browsing performance?

I presume the same would apply to the CLSID killbits entries?

 

Hi,

I'm not sure about Spybot, but SpywareBlaster adds a focused group of a few thousand entries to Internet Explorer's Restricted Sites zone. However the quantity really need not be a concern (see below).

Internet Explorer loads the Restricted Sites list once (when you first start Internet Explorer) which, even with a ridiculously large number of entries, does not cause a noticable delay. It then stores the list in an internal data structure, and checks each site you browse against this internal data structure in what is likely a direct lookup (i.e. it doesn't have to scan the entire list to find an item).

The method that Internet Explorer utilizes for ActiveX Compatibility (killbit) entries is also exceedingly efficient. When an ActiveX control is being instantiated, Internet Explorer queries for the existence of a single registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\<ActiveX Control CLISD>. This single registry key look-up occurs whether or not the kill bit (or even that key) exists, so having the kill bit in place provides essentially zero performance impact while providing a useful benefit.

The summary of all of this is: you don't have to worry about a performance impact, period.

Best regards,

-Javacool

 

Impressive answers.

Thank you again for the detailed and relevant answers.

I'm now satisfied that there is no performance hit and will install SpywareBlaster on all my Vista machines.