Spyware Blaster - hows it block & hows it impact performance?

I have used spybots immunize function and spyware blaster both, but still have questions about immunizing that I'm not clear on.

1. Since spyware blaster and spybots immunize feature adds thousands of hostnames in the host file, which starts at startup, what is the performance impact in general windows use? just a few extra mb ram at startup?

2. What is the browser performance impact?

3. How does spybots immunize function differ from spyware blasters? Which has the larger or better database?

 

I haven't used Spybot S&D in ages, so my info about it might be slightly (or more) out of date. I too had asked, a while back, about how much a huge Hosts file would affect performance, and was told virtually no effect since it's read very quickly. Spybot could in other respects affect performance, though -- one of the main reasons I dropped it (in favor of SAS and MBAM) was that I didn't like its having a process running continuously, even in the free non-resident version.

Spyware Blaster should have little or no effect on performance. As noted above, even a humongous hosts file shouldn't matter, and SB itself normally doesn't even run unless you're updating it or changing setup options.

And SB's protection against active-X malware is "sort-of-resident" in the sense that killbits are set in the registry when you install or update it.

 

SpywareBlaster doesn't reference the hosts file - all of its entries are stored in the registry. I don't use Spybot - S&D, but AFAIK it works in a similar way.

 

Info about Hosts file, from MVPSHosts:

SpywareBlaster, as stated, sets killbits in the registry, a different way of achieving site blocking, more tailored (if I understand it correctly) at blocking certain ActiveX elements.
It can be run in parallel with S&D, or a Hosts file.
I would not (and do not) run S&D's immunize function with a Hosts file installed.
There is no noticeable performance impact (if any) from having SpywareBlaster installed.

 

I do, I have the MVPS hosts file, and also run S&D's immunize. When applying immunization it sees a few hundred entries already protected(because they are already in MVPS) and only adds the nonduplicate entries to the hosts file. They're added at the end of the file, so after MVPS entries, about two thirds in the host file you get:
"#end of lines added by WinHelp2002
# Start of entries inserted by Spybot - Search & Destroy"

I don't notice any slowdown with also Spybots entries. It isn't that big together, for example, HP hosts is bigger than MVPS and Spybot's combined.

Also, if you like, you can uncheck the hosts file from immunization and only immunize the browsers.

 

same here, wouldn't use SS&D ever again, it's too outdated (the software, interface, scan methods...). I still use SpywareBlaster, doesn't have any impact on browsing performance, all it does is add a list of untrusted sites to dismiss unwanted and malicious cookies (re-directions etc...). Once you've configured it and updated it, and closed it, there's no spywareblaster process running.

 

I see nothing running. There is no paid version btw.

 

I still use it for immunization, if you uncheck Teatimer and SDhelper, then there are also no running processes. I still prefer it to Spywareblaster because Spywareblaster only does a cookie blacklist for Firefox and Spybot also does images, installations and pop-ups. Also with IE Spywareblaster does ActiveX and cookies and Spybot does cookies, domains, ip's, secure domains and plugins. Spybot also has weekly updates, and spywareblaster only every two weeks. I still think Spywareblaster is a nice addition though.

 

It's a very long time ago I installed SS&D so I didn't think of it, but I unchecked teatimer and sdhelper also.