Spywareblaster.

Is there any reason to use SpywareBlaster? I used it years ago but is not the days of host blocking gone and done with? Like where is the risk anymore?

 

SpywareBlaster blocks 16,119 potentially harmful items for me. That's 16,119 less things to worry about either tracking me or whatever other mischief that they could get up to.

 

16K is a small amount and a host list won't block 16K threats, its blocking 16K hosts which most likely are already shut down and the Malware are on new hosts. It seems fairly redundant.

 

Hi,

SpywareBlaster is not a HOSTS list.

Rather, SpywareBlaster helps address multiple types of threats and annoyances via multiple methods, including:
-preventing malicious/unwanted downloads
-preventing sites from exploiting your browser
-preventing spyware/adware/hijackers/malware from being installed (especially unwanted ActiveX/BHOs)
-preventing malicious/ad/tracking/annoying/potentially unwanted scripts from running
-preventing malicious/ad/tracking/etc cookies

(Different methods and different types of protection are used depending on what browsers you have installed.)

SpywareBlaster is a combination of multiple layers of protection that is built to be compatible with, and work alongside, any existing security setup to help secure and enhance your browsing experience.

 

It uses host blacklists though to do all of those things. In windows or directly in the browser. Is there anything I'm missing because this is all i have ever seen the program do as nothing is ever active in memory while using it.

 

SpywareBlaster does not modify "C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\HOSTS" in any way. It only changes browser settings.

From what you said, either your definition of host is incorrect, or you've mistake modifications made by yourself or other programs as the handiwork of SpywareBlaster. Don't forget that it updates the blocklist.

Why keep it? It's nothing amazing, but there are virtually no cons to keeping it. You say "It seems fairly redundant." but that's the same (to varying degrees) with any security software that's catching up to malware. Which is basically all of them.

 

It's not a hosts list. But there are 16,119 less things that can get past Firefox or SeaMonkey. I don't see that as a bad thing. One more layer of protection in fact.

 

I call anything that blocks a website via a list of website as a "Host" list. Its very purpose is matching host-names to IP addresses. Maybe its not adding them to the windows host file but it for sure is adding them to the browsers equivalent to a host list. My question still stands though, when websites that host malware get shut down within 24 hours now of release. Why bother with this style of blocking?

 

Hi,

There are a few misconceptions I'd like to address:

SpywareBlaster addresses specific software, not just specific websites (for example: specific BHOs/plugins, ActiveX downloads, etc).

Also, in some cases it uses lists of regular expressions, which are far more flexible than just blocking specific domain names (like you might through a HOSTS file which, again, SpywareBlaster does not use).

Even in the cases where a specific cookie or a specific domain's actions are restricted in the browser, please be aware that there are often persistent domains used for the initial point of infection (if code has been injected into other websites), along the chain, for command/control, for phishing, and for many other purposes. Yes, there are cases where domains are used for a short period of time, but there are also domains/IP blocks that have been used for and associated with malware/spyware/etc. distribution for a long time (and continue to be used). Regardless, SpywareBlaster supports a robust updating system - it is not a "use once" product.

I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings.