Chrome, Malwarebytes, Norton ConnectSafe, Adblock Plus..

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Frank the Perv, Mar 7, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Dec 16, 2005
    Virginia, USA
    I'm unclear on the similarities differences of all these apps that protect surfing.

    So, I usually use Google Chrome. It has:

    I also use Malwarebytes. It has:

    I also use Norton ConnectSafe (Norton DNS). It:

    And I use Adblock Plus with malware domains blocked which:

    And my AV has some sort of blacklist too.

    Are all these things pretty similar?

    Is SpywareBlaster still relevant?

    It says it:


    Is this just more of the same -- or is this a little bit different?


  2. Sordid

    Sordid Registered Member

    Oct 25, 2011
    Chrome: there are white papers on this. Essentially, it has a whitelist. Hit that and the url loads. It has a blacklist. Hit those and url is killed. It has an unknown. So if not on either list a url hash is sent and the URL verified. Progs are scanned in a similar fashion.

    *Con: network lookups take time / local less. Privacy leaks.

    MBAM: Realtime URL blacklist. Local network filter.

    *Con: local overhead

    Norton: Uses DNS filter. So when DNS is used, it is compared against Norton's blacklist.

    *Con: Preresolved IPs are not scanned. Privacy.

    Adblock: Uses a list of blacklisted domains. Usually from malware-domains. Local.

    *Con: slower to update. No push. Local overhead.

    Spyware Blaster: Uses network zones to blacklist.

    *Con: Local overhead. Registry directly dependent.

    All attempt to achieve the same end differently and ergo, have different strengths and weaknesses. This is ALL ultimately list based, however, and thus share the same intrinsic weakness: don't serve malware from a know addy and I bypass all that gear.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
  3. Have not checked recently, but Chrome's phising and malware protection updates Google's black list to a local data base within the browser every half hour. It uses shortened URL's for speed. So phising IP based protection should not have any privacy issues. On top of that extensions and plug-ins can use the API to check any URL against the most recent black list at the Google servers, extensions/plug-ins using this API could potentially leave a trace of your browsing behaviour.

    To match IE's download protection Google also has added a reputation filter. This whitelist seems to check the central whitelist, so this could be a potential privacy leak.

    Google is the search engine most used, Chrome is the most used browser, so the IP black list of Chrome is the one with the largest user base (so this should also result in better protection in theory).

    IMO only using a different DNS service makes sence (like Norton). It has the advantage that you spread the places on whoch your behaviour can be tracked and that all the IP checking is done at the DNS-server network.

    Google (build in your browser) and Norton (DNS-server check not on your PC) provides the best combo in terms of coverage and speed. I would drop everything else, just a waist of CPU cycles IMO. One year ago I did some extensive testing on both privacy, protection and performance, so my opinion could be dated.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.