Is SB necessary or desireable for Vista (or Windows 7)?

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by gaslad, Mar 28, 2010.

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

    gaslad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Posts:
    116
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    I ask because of this opinion from Mike Burgess, an MS-MVP whose opinion I respect, in response to the question as to why the MVPS website recommends not to install SB on Vista :

    "1) the entries (over 7,000) are not updated as often as needed, and
    many of the ones that do exist are no longer valid, thus creating a
    huge amount of invalid Registry entries. Which Microsoft NEVER
    intended that so many entries would exist there in the Registry.

    2) Windows Vista does NOT allow any new ActiveX installs or
    any to run without first prompting the user. (XP doesn't do that)

    When Spywareblaster first came out it was and still is a good program
    however as time has progressed the type of malicious installs no
    longer simply use ActiveX as a method of infection."


    http://www.calendarofupdates.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=15621&view=findpost&p=67241
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  2. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    I install it on both OS. It is updated fairly regularly, has no impact on performance and also protects FF + some other functions.
     
  3. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Yes I agree. It may not be so relevant for IE users but Firefox, SeaMonkey & K-Meleon (& other browsers) still benefit from it. I do a lot of Net research in K-Meleon & I like to think that SB is an extra level of protection if I happen upon a dodgy webpage .
     
  4. javacool

    javacool BrightFort Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,997
    Yes.

    It is indeed true that Windows Vista/7 offer improved security over Windows XP.

    One improvement is the way that Windows Vista/7 (but also the newer versions of IE, which are available for XP) treat ActiveX installs: it now takes more steps to actually install something via ActiveX, and more appropriate warnings are shown to the user. That said, while unwanted ActiveX installs are not as serious a concern anymore, nor are they the primary method of infection as they once were, they are still utilized to install unwanted crap, and SpywareBlaster still blocks them just as well as it always has. It's one less thing to worry about constantly.

    But the changing threat landscape is also why SpywareBlaster, for quite a while, has offered more than just its ActiveX protection - it offers a multi-layered series of protections for multiple different browsers. Restricted Sites protection prevents unwanted scripting, exploits, downloads and more. Cookie blocking provides targeted protection against potentially unwanted and tracking cookies. And we are constantly working on implementing additional layers to provide a great blend of protection against the many different methods of infection.

    We also test all of this to ensure it doesn't slow anything down. (My personal philosophy is it shouldn't be a "trade-off" to better secure your machine.)
    And all the layers that SpywareBlaster provides work great on Windows Vista/7 as well. :)

    So while Windows Vista/7 is undoubtably more secure than Windows XP, and has less of a critical need for certain parts of SpywareBlaster's protection, those protections are still just as effective at blocking out the bad/unwanted stuff.

    It's up to you, of course, whether you want to block that stuff. But I generally err on the side of multiple, sensible layers of security. If one fails, the others still have a chance to keep anything unwanted out. And SpywareBlaster's about as low-maintenance, no-nonsense as they come. :cool:

    Best regards,

    -Javacool
     
  5. gaslad

    gaslad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Posts:
    116
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Thanks to all for that useful info.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.