Regdefend redundant with Spysweeper's autostart protection ?

Hi

I have Spysweeper on my PC and wonder if its registry protection (autostart keys) would not be redundant with Regdefend or similar (Diamonds registryprotect) ?

thx ! ar

 

if SS monitors the autorun entries in the registry then yes it would be redundant.

 

thanks for your replys

just another one :

Peter2150 you mean :

Polling = Spysweeper scans registry at time intervalls

while

Regdefend watches constantly the registry ?


EDIT : Ok, I found the answer here http://www.ghostsecurity.com/index.php?page=regdefend

So, in this task of watching autostart registry entries, Regdefend should be better than Spysweeper ?

 

since regdefend uses a hook as opposed to polling, it also uses ur CPU at lot less.

also since RegDefend already protects many other entries than just the autorun section, u should just disable SS' startup list protection.

 

Yes.

RD prevents changes to protected areas of Registry from occuring in the first place; unless you give permission. RD is not looking for changes that have already taken place - which is what a 'poller' is looking for.

Yes, better protection, but I wouldn't necessarily talk of redundancy because they are doing things differently. Thus if you disable your security while you do an installation RD will not inform you of any Registry changes that happen while it is disabled. However a 'poller' is looking for changes and therefore will find them as soon as you re-enable it again.

Let me give a specific example, when I upgraded Sun Java I switched off RD and CounterSpy to do the installation. When I swithed them on again CounterSpy immediately informed me that I had some new Active X and a new BHO installed. I was then able to check that these were legitimate. RD would not have notified me of this change to my system. So you see that pollers do have their uses; as to whether it is worth tying up resources for this kind of thing is another matter though!

 

many thanks for your explanations !