SpywareGuard needed with Firefox?

I am considering getting SG, but I use Firefox, is it still good to have? The only reason I ask is because on Javacools site it says "prevent spyware from being download in Internet Explorer", does this mean it does not prevent it in FF? Also how is the resource usage of SG? Thanks.

 

If you still have IE on your computer if you use it or not it would be a good idea to use spywareguard

 

Also, IMHO, usage is basically nill.



snowbound

 

Well I only use IE for windows update, does SG offer ANY protection to FF? because I would rather not have extra programs running in the background when its not nessasary. I am all about layed protection, but I am also about keeping background apps to a minimum.

 

Any word on if SpywareGuard does indeed assist with Firefox?
I know the browser hijacks are mostly in regard to IE as well as BHOs.

 

I am also in the same situation. In fact, as I am running on Win98SE, I don't even bother with Windows Update any more. I don't use Outlook or Outlook Express so, as far as I know, I don't use IE at all (standalone or embedded). All of my browsing is in Firefox so I am wondering whether SG is adding anything to my security. Although SG seems very light on resources, it is important for me to keep resource usage as low as possible as the memory areas for resources are a fixed size in Win9x/ME and, with today's resource-hungry programs, they very quickly run out. So can anyone provide an answer to the question of whether SpywareGuard provides any benefit if I don't use IE?

Thanks for a great program either way, Javacool!

patermann

 

SG can still give you some protection with Firefox. A recent Java based exploit was disseminated through a malicious website, downloaded through Firefox, and launched IE to do its evil tricks (see Spywarewarrior.com re Spazbox.net). Therefore, even though you aren't using it to browse, and it's just sitting there on your computer, SG can still give you some needed activeX protection.

 

Many thanks for that Ad/Subtract - that is exactly what I needed to know. I will leave SG running.

patermann

 

SG doesn't give you any ActiveX protection! That's spywareblaster.

 

Yes, SB does provide specific ActiveX protection while SG provides indirect ActiveX protection for IE. That's why many Firefox converts (including me) use both. The real time scanning for dangerous EXE and CAB files together with the guarding against spyware downloads and browser hijacks by SG can prevent IE exposure to potential ActiveX exploits even if IE were launched by a malicious script.

 

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, there are a lot of "cross-exploits" around, which can affect a program (especially part of the MS package) even if you don't use it.

That's why, for example, I religiously get and apply critical upgrades for Outlook Express even though I don't touch it.

 

I would say that such protection would not count as ActiveX protection, since the ActiveX mechanism itself is not targetted. I suppose given this definition, any anti-malware realtime scanner would be counted as providing indirect activeX protection.

Personally as a former firefox user, I think it overkill to use SG with SB, espically given the effectiveness of SG is pretty much unproven.

 

On the flip side....has it been disproven

 

Yeah in my home tests .