Bit Defender conflict with Spyware Blaster?

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by Mele20, Apr 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Javacool, could you explain please why Bit Defender has a major conflict with Spyware Blaster? I cannot fathom how that could be. (Bit Defender also claims a major conflict with Spybot and if one were using TeaTimer I could see a possiblity of conflict since BD now has antispyware scanning but Spyware Blaster I cannot understand).

    Support just told me that I MUST uninstall your great little proggie if I want to continue to use BD (along with that I must uninstall Spybot also). I wrote back and told them that I would like them to please explain the reasoning behind this demand as I couldn't see how the two could possibly conflict. I also stated that if there really is this conflict that causes internet slowdowns and hangs that I would instead uninstall BD and look for another AV even though I really like BD rather than uninstall my two oldest and most favorite antispyware applications. The reply from BD was a complete silence regarding my request for an explanation and no interest in keeping me as a customer.

    So, do you have any understanding of what the heck they are so defensive about and why they are telling users that we can't use your application and Patrick's (even when not using TeaTimer)? I am also going over to ask Patrick about his proggie and BD.

    I have a longer post about this issue here (number 21).
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=725660#post725660
     
  2. javacool

    javacool BrightFort Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,997
    Hi,

    There is nothing about how SpywareBlaster functions that should conflict with Bit Defender or, frankly, any other similar program (anti-virus, firewall, etc). :)

    As I'm sure you're aware (but for the sake of any others who are interested) SpywareBlaster doesn't even have to remain running - it enables protection and then you just have to close it. So there's nothing running that could conflict with BitDefender, nor is there really anything about it's protection methods (ActiveX protection via kill bits, cookie blocking, restricted sites protection, etc.) that should conflict either.

    (To address an issue in the other thread you linked - SpywareBlaster is about the lowest-cost protection you can implement on your system. Nothing has to remain running in the background, nor is there any reason anything should be slowed down by SpywareBlaster itself. What has been seen in the past, is programs dealing poorly with the Restricted Sites protection, for example - but any user can add sites to the restricted sites zone themselves via Internet Explorer, so any other program that chokes on things like Restricted Sites entries or large hosts files - which SpywareBlaster does not implement - could probably deal with things much more gracefully, to put it nicely. ;))

    So I'm not sure why BitDefender support suggested you uninstall SpywareBlaster (and Spybot). There is always the possibility that tech support is merely trying to eliminate "potential" causes for the problems you are experiencing with BitDefender in the hope that they'll hit the cure.

    In the past, anti-virus companies have suggested against running more than one "active-scanner" anti-virus product at any one time, which is fairly sound advice because of how such products work. But anti-spyware is a different ballgame altogether, and SpywareBlaster is still further unique in it's approach, which is much more of a "passive/proactive protection" and has been carefully tuned and maintained to ensure that conflicts don't happen. :cool:

    If you happen to get anything else out of BitDefender support, please don't hesitate to post - I'd be very interested to see what they say.

    Best regards,

    -Javacool

    P.S. Even with IE 7, SpywareBlaster is still highly recommended. While IE 7 is indeed another step in the right direction (as was IE 6 SP2, which shipped with XP SP2), layered security is extremely important, with the number of vulnerabilities and issues being discovered every week (let alone the number of ways the bad guys are trying to trick users into installing their software). Plus it's free and I'm always happy to answer questions. :)
     
  3. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Hey Mele,

    What version of BitDefender are you using ? I am wanting to download an evaluation version but there are half a dozen to choose from :blink:

    Never mind....I'll assume from another post you made that this is 9.5 Pro.

    Bubba
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  4. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Javacool, thank you for that detailed reply. I was aware of most everything you touched on but I needed to hear you say it as I was mystified by Bit Defender support's attitude and wondered if I could possibly be missing something. I've used your wonderful proggie from its inception and you even made me a Lite version once for 98SE (remember?). :D I'm VERY HAPPY though with the full version and I told BD that Spyware Blaster has some neat tools that I don't want to give up either. I have been seeing BD support tell a lot of users recently to remove Spyware Blaster and Spybot if they intend to use BD. I have run into this in several forums where users are just as perplexed as I as to why BD is being so insistent about this supposed "conflict". I pointed out to them that Spyware Blaster doesn't run in the background but as I said they refused to explain their demand and appeared quite unconcerned that I was looking for another AV. I also told them I planned to ask you and Patrick about this supposed problem and that I was going to warn others about this conflict and the demand that we not use these wonderful applications along with BD. It is wacky how they ignored everything I said. I'm going to write them again and if they do explain, I'll let you know. Support, I found to be very cryptic regarding any questions or explanations even those I had that were not about this issue. Brevity is one thing...cryptic is something else.

    I am a bit puzzled though and surprised regarding Don Pelotas' little experiment with removing Spyware Blaster. I don't see how using Spyware Blaster can affect the speed of the computer. Unless he is seeing programs that couldn't handle the restricted sites protection of Spyware Blaster now working more smoothly.

    The irony here is that I was having no problems with running Spyware Blaster and Spybot along with BD 9 which I really liked. I even said so in a thread here (not the one I linked to but an earlier one) where users were complaining that BD support was insisting that Spyware Blaster and Spybot were totally incompatible with BD and had to be removed. Then BD suddenly forced an upgrade to 9.5 during a routine definitions update recently and I immediately started getting BSODs on reboot caused by two different BD drivers. I contacted support and BD wouldn't let me just use 9.0. They said I had to allow the upgrade. They did finally issue a fix to all users based on my reporting of the problem and the BSODs. In the course of dealing with that problem they asked finally for a scan of my computer by Belarc Advisor and that was how they found out I had these two proggies. That upset them and they said I should have already removed them. Didn't I realize these proggies were causing much of my problem? GEEZ! It was their buggy upgrade that was causing the problem. I hate to conclude this but it appears they simply want their users to only use their new antispyware module and are looking for a scapegoat for their bugs.

    So, bubba, if you find any problems with BD and these two proggies I'd be very interested. I don't think you will though.
     
  5. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    At the moment what I have installed is Bitdefender Antispyware 9. Unless their About is wrong....it does not appear it will offer\update me to 9.5 even after numerous attempts. As you mentioned....ver 9 is not causing any heartaches here in regards to it's Registry Control monitoring....which I'm assuming is where the bottle neck is. I have thrown as many program features similar to Spywareblaster that I can.... especially those Interent Explorer Domain registry monitoring types....and nothing abnormal occurs. Unless I can get a copy of 9.5 from the BD folks it does not appear I'll be able to assist in troubleshooting the conflict further :doubt:
     
  6. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Maybe it will update to 9.5 with the next hourly update or even the hour after that. It sounds like though that a trial is only with 9.0 and not 9.5 but seems a bit odd. Has it done a hourly update yet? It is during one of those that it will be offered. I don't think you will find a conflict anyhow. I liked the registry protection even though it was redundant in that I usually have ProcessGuard installed (not currently as it too is giving me problems at the moment). You will have the option to uncheck the antispyware scanning as the upgrade is occuring, but no option to deny the upgrade to 9.5 itself.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.