Newbie Question

Hi I'm R6, just purchase Spywareblaster, installed, and then updated to 5.0. All appears good tho have done no browsing yet.

2009 Toshiba, A135 Satelite, W7, 32 bit, and only use IE9. I have done all lastest MS recommended updates no problems.

Holding off on IE10 till I know if there are any bugs fixes to be concerned about before installing.

So my question is, does anyone else here have IE10 on W7 OS( 32 or 64) and is also using spyblaster 5.0? How long have been using the two? Any significant concerns?

Thanks R6

 

Using IE10 and SpywareBlaster on Win7x64 Pro with no noticeable problems. The official/"final" release of IE10 for Win7 was only about 3 weeks ago... and I believe I waited about a week before installing it.

I have been using SpywareBlaster (free version) along with IE for years. For what it's worth, my full security specs are as follows:

Windows 7 Pro SP1 (64-bit), avast! V8 Free, MBAM Pro, Windows Firewall, EMET, OpenDNS Family Shield, IE10 & Firefox (both using WOT & KeyScrambler), MVPS HOSTS file, SpywareBlaster, WinPatrol PLUS, SAS (on-demand scanner), Secunia PSI.
[I am experimenting with Sandboxie, and believe computer-users who sandbox are acting prudently.]

 

Hi ky, and thanks for that feedback. Since all my other MS upadates have, for the most part, installed with few problems, I presume IE10 will install without a hitch.

Wow, it appears you have a bunc of apps. that pertain to security in one way or another. I've be told to disable either my MSE or Avast, and not run both together, but I'm not aware of any conflicts or slow-downs, and certainly none of any significance.

Since Avast also guards the browser--- similar to Spywareblaster ---I suppose there is potential for conflict or slow-down there. Have to wait and see but nothing I'm aware of yet.

My plan is to get back on the MBAM free version again, and use for off time scanning.

Yes Wfirewall is turned-on also. Been hearing about Sandiebox as I browse around but in no hurry to get another app. beyond what I mention above.

Whatyear, kind and model of computer are you using? Just curious should I feel need to ever upgrade this used ebay toshiba. For $175. I'm actually quite suprised it has had so few issues in the few months I've been a PC owner. R6

PS{note} 31 stays prime as it fills/expands outward to 7 places ex 3 33 33 31 is prime

 

My main PC is a Lenovo T530 laptop, with Intel Core i5-3320M @ 2.60 GHz & 8GB RAM. Purchased in late 2012.

(My secondary/backup PC is a 6 year old Dell laptop running [32-bit] WinXP Pro SP3)

Please correct my signature/programs to read IE10 (rather than IE9) and Avast 8 (rather than Avast 7).

I believe in combining layered security, rather than "placing all my eggs in one basket" (of a single security suite). This way, I can pick-and-choose what I believe to be (among the) "best" in each category.

You should be running only ONE anti-virus in real-time. So definitely, choose either your avast or MSE, but not both. Each one is good (come highly recommended) --- so the choice of which is entirely up to you.

SpywareBlaster is made to run independently of other security programs... it's a "passive" program, rather than being "active" (real-time). So it should work well, and not conflict, with ANY anti-virus program [avast, MSE, or any other].

MBAM free is a definite "winner"... would never be without it! Personally, I feel MBAM Pro is worth the one-time (lifetime) purchase --- indeed, it's the only paid program I advocate. Everything else on my list (aside from the PLUS version of WinPatrol) is completely free.

There ARE issues when running IE10x64 under Sandboxie with Avast... see my write-ups
http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/virus-spyware/f/3522/t/19497267.aspx
[EDIT: But since you have a 32-bit O/S, the preceding shouldn't apply to you.]
and
http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/virus-spyware/f/3522/t/19497309.aspx

 

Thanks ky for the indepth explanations. I'm not aware of a problem actually occurring on my machine by having both MSE and Avast active-real -time protection and rest assured that I'm aware of many who state the same as you.

A few have stated that Avast and MSE play well together that is my experience so far and that is part of my attempts at layering as they are both on the low end for their protection abilities, so together I ** hope** to get slightly better coverage.

Spyblaster, Avast and MBAM all guard against web site bugs yes? So, I would think the more of those active reatl-time, the more chance to slow computer processes.

Actually my friend claims the free Avast for just the web guarding was slowing his Mac computer and causing other problems. I dunno as I did not get to investigate his circumstances.

If I recall correctly Lenovo's got the average ratings for reliability when I was first shopping--- 7/2012 ---for a PC latop and was my 2nd choice when I was bidding at ebay.

R6

 

Here's the argument against running two (or more) real-time anti-virus programs:

1) Both will be scanning all files as they are accessed. While you might argue that passing two tests is better [i.e., safer] than just one, the point is that you're doubling the access time for every file opened.
2) Now, let's say your machine is so fast that you don't notice the slowdown cited in point (1). Should you ever get an infected file on your system, then both programs can get "into a fight" as they each try to quarantine [or delete, or perhaps "repair"] the infection. Avast will try to move it into Avast's quarantine, but MSE won't let it --- wanting to store it in its own quarantine. And vice versa. Unfortunately, unless/until you get infected, you may never experience this "fighting". Worst case, it may lock-up your system, forcing a hard reboot (pressing the POWER button to force a system shutdown). It's your call if you want to risk this --- to wait until a major problem actually hits your system.
3) It's also possible that each one may detect the other program --- especially its signature/data files --- as being a virus, and so each may remove part of the others integral structure. This also applies to system-level drivers: some people install a 2nd anti-virus, and try to disable its real-time protection component. But they typically don't realize/understand that low-level system drivers may still be installed in such a case.

-------------------------------------

As I stated earlier, SpywareBlaster offers passive protection: In terms of IE, it does 3 things:
a - it places "bad" websites into IE's "restricted sites" zone, which limits what can be done when you visit those sites. You can still access these sites, but with some activities there restricted.
b - it can disable "bad" ActiveX controls. These features ["mini programs"] will not be able to run if a site tries to access them.
c - it will block certain sites from storing cookies on your system.

In short, SpywareBlaster doesn't stop you from visiting sites... but it can limit/restrict what those sites can do on your system.

------------------------------------------

MBAM free does not offer realtime protection, so there is no conflict between its on-demand scanning, and any anti-virus progam.

MBAM PRO does offer realtime protection. But its author have taken great care to avoid conflicts with anti-virus programs. MBAM is NOT an anti-virus... it does not replace an anti-virus. Anyone who runs MBAM alone, thinking he's getting anti-virus protection from it is deluding himself.

Rather, MBAM focuses its efforts on some of the most stubborn, hard-to-remove infections that typically get through most anti-virus programs. For example, many people, despite having an anti-virus program running, somehow manage to get infected by "rogue malware" (including "ransom-ware"), and Zlob/Vundo Trojans. And they then complain that their anti-virus wasn't doing its job. In most of these cases, subsequently running MBAM as a scanner will remove these particular problems. And if MBAM is the tool of choice to remove these infections after they've already set in, just think how people could have avoided it completely, if they had MBAM PRO running to prevent these infections in the first place!

--------------------------------------

As for problems and offering complaints, let acknowledge a basic fact of human nature: people with a problem are more likely to complain, than for satisfied customers to take the time to offer a complement. So yes, for example, you'll find hundreds of complaints about botched installations of Avast8 at their forum. What you DON'T see is the hundreds of THOUSANDS of satisfied customers checking-in there. If Avast was slowing down your friends MAC, there's likely a reason --- and a fix --- for it.

 

thanks again for indepth explanations ky. I think the next step is to find a viral test site, and see if MSE and Avast handle a test virus. If you know of any good viral test sites thanks ahead of time.

R6

 

The standard virus test is from EICAR. It's a safe file for testing, and just about every anti-virus will detect it.
For more information about this, see http://www.cloudantivirus.com/en/threat-information/EICAR-AV-TEST-FILE/1779/


Several different versions (.com file, .txt file, .zip file) can be downloaded from

http://www.eicar.org/85-0-Download.html

 

Ky, I ofund this 2nd one on my own and dowloaded twice this morning and nothing happen.

I just clicked on your link to it and downloaded it and nothing happens. Then I read more and says to do a scan. Scan what? Do I have to a whole computer scan? Why cant they tell me a folder some where to scan.

I also would like to have one come in my email and see if it gets detected that way, so, i've been searching and I tried emails the EICAR email to myself but it the email will not send out from my PC mail, nor from my yahoo mail. I guess because it has the test virus in it. I think the email way is the main wayu to see if my two Av's are not going to play well together.

They sure make it difficult to do this check. imho R6

 

When I try clicking on the following direct link, Avast's WEB SHIELD intercepts & blocks the webpage (and so the file never gets to download to my system):

http://www.eicar.org/download/eicar.com <=== EICAR *TEST* FILE

Should it somehow get through, the FILE SHIELD should intercept it as it's being written to your disk.

If it's successfully downloading to your system, something is wrong... which might be an indication that Avast+MSE are fighting each other, allowing the file to download while they are "distracted" in combat.

 

ky, That link is not the same as the previous one I had been downloading from fro some 6-7 times with nothing happening execept the tab blinks. The text says to scan for EICAR but it does not state a specific place to scan.

I scanned Programs folder and eicar was not found, Then I tried another folder and nothing found.

SO I tried this link you give below and two things happen;

1) with IE9 it opens subwindow and asks if I want to run or save eicar,

2) MSE sub window appears in bottom right corner saying it spotted or blocked eicar.

So MSE did its job. I will try your link below a few times over and see if MSE always finds it or if anthing locks etc...

I still need to find out if that other eicar web side downloaded 7 copies of eicar on to my PC somewhere and if so, where. Thanks for this recent link it was perfect test, tho not an email test.

R6

 

Interesting, so below I show how MSE stopped, blocked or removed malicous threat from that last link you gave.

So just now I shut off MSE, and clicked the link and this time a sperate tab opens to Eicar, but Avast window in right lower corner says it stopped or blocked malicous site from opening.

So I click on ky's given link again, and the new tab opens but get message in IE9 main window saying cannot open page, and the Avast window does not open. I try this a few more times and same thing, teh Avast window never appears again.

So then, I go back and turn MSE back on. Now I try kys given link again and no longer do I get what I original first got via IE9 sub-window run or save and the MSE little window saying stopped or prevented malicous threat from opening.

So it appears, that once Avast discovered it, something was done to IE9 so now niether Avast or MSE window appears to tell me of malicous threat.

H,mmm I suppose what I should try next is to diable Avast and try clicking the link and or first just try shutting off computer and see if IE9 and or AVast resets itself, and once again will allow MSE to discovery maliocious web site threat.

R6

 

Ok, so I restarted computer cause neither Avast or MSE were showing a message any more and all I got was IE9 with new tab and main window saying cannot open web page use dianostics etc....

Sure enough after restaring I get the sub IE9 subwindow to run save or cancel and the little MSE window pops into view and says "detected threats are being cleaned".

So, what I've learned from these few small experiements, is that base purely on the EICar via a web site entry, does get caught by MSE or Avast if if MSE is shut off, and that my there does not appear to be any detriment-- ex locking of OS ---to my OS.

Again, there are zillions of differrent kinds of malicous bugs so there is no telling how my OS may respond in every circumstance, when both MSE and Avast are both on.

R6

 

Okay, your testing seems to show that MSE responds first on your system --- "cutting off" avast from finding eicar... but in the absence of MSE, avast will then get the job done.

On my system, avast is the first responder (in this case)... but I believe that other components I have --- such as IE10's SmartScreen filter --- would likewise block EICAR in the event avast didn't get to it first.

The difference being that SmartScreen filter is a part of IE, which was intended to co-exist with whatever anti-virus you're using.

All I can say is that I've offered you what I believe to be sound advice about not running two real-time anti-virus programs... which you have likewise heard from others. If you believe you're better protected doing so, that will have to be your decision to live by.

Alternatively, if you truly believe both avast and MSE "are both on the low end for their protection abilities", then you might want to consider investing in a high-quality paid alternative... perhaps ESET NOD32 or Kaspersky ??

===============

I'd also like to mention experiencing what you did --- that after avast caught eicar the first time, it seemed to block access to that link thereafter: the page would not display again, and so avast did not have to warn again, until after the system was rebooted.

 

Ky, very good comprehensive understanding of my journey so far. I wonder if I disable Avast and MSE would spywblaster see EICAR?

I guess not cause it is not AV but other kinds of malicous tracking bugs. Probably more of the kind MBAM also guards against.

MSE + AVast = free

Spyblast( fee ) + free MBAM

I think next thing for me is to be sure I have either a good system image or Disk Image along with my cloned PC on HD.

Then I can try to install IE10. Thanks again for you links and advice ky. Oh yeah, I also may have some EICars somewhere on PC waiting to be found by whole PC scan, I guess.

R6

 

I see that there is a new Spywareblaster DATABASE, released 3/21/2013, which I have just manually downloaded.

Since you have the paid version, with auto-updating, it would be interesting to see when it auto-downloads for you...
and whether it automatically enables them... or if you have to do that part.

 

Hi Ky, thanks for hanging in there with your considerations. That is good thoughts. I opened my SpyBl and it says database loaded 2/28/2013. 16017 items.

I had the computer on this moring and no apparent update and now again this eveing and no apparent update. Are there any Spywareblaster authorities around here who actually respond to our emails?

I think there may be a contact address somewhere in Spybla. I forget. I will hold off updating and wait to see if and when it happens. I have new free version of MBAM installed ran it and no bugs on computer.

Also did ful computer scan with free Avast and no infections found, so, whatever that one web page was doing with EICar when it blinked but nothing appeared to happen appears to have been just that, nothing happen.

R6

 

Ha, I think I never put my code key into the system. Just did that now, and a little window just now pop-out saying Spywareblaster updated and now it states the new date 3/31 likes yours, so not the exact test but it did occur within 5 minutes of my enter the key code and verification process completely.

Hope that answers your questions. Pleas ask if you have any more. R6

 

Question, so if there are updates for IE why wouldn't there be the same number of updates for Chrome?

 

Digmor,

In terms of what SpywareBlaster does:

IE protection falls into 3 categories: ActiveX controls, Restricted Sites, and Cookies.

Firefox's "protection" is limited to blocking Cookies.

Chome - (I don't know SpywareBlaster does here)

In short, SpywareBlaster's database includes separate information for each browser.

For example, there are two separate versions of (Adobe) Flash. An activeX version which runs in IE, and a plug-in version which runs under alternative browsers (including Firefox and Opera). So if SpywareBlaster ever had need to limit/restrict the ActiveX version of Flash in IE, this [in and of itself] would have no impact on the plugin version in Firefox.

 

R6,

Glad that things are progressing well for you.

Keep in mind that this, like many other forums, is/are basically "user-to-user". It offers the greatest chance of someone seeing your question, and offering a reply. Of course, it also means you may receive a incorrect response (depending on that person's knowledge --- or lack thereof).

I'm sure some people more-directly-affiliated with SpywareBlaster may try to read some of these posts. The "big boss" --- Javacool --- does reply to some. But it's understandable he just can't get to everyone. Of course, with a subscription, there's more reason for him to reply to official e-mails you send.

 

Thanks Ky, well now that I finally entered the key code I'm fully official. Do you know what MBAM blocks that spyblaster doesn't in general?

I know that during my trail version of MBAM it open little windows and told me that there was a potentially malicious site trying to enter through some specific port.

I understand that Spywareblaster does not notify me this kind of occurrence as MBAM did, but wondering if it does exactly or pretty much the same kind of protection that MBAM offers?

I thought that it did when doing the research but realized later I didn't really review many of the other similar type free programs out there. R6

 

MBAM is a very different "creature" from SpywareBlaster.

Let's start with the free version (that you have). Aside from the trial period, MBAM (free) does not offer you up-front protection... you need to run its scanner, when you decide to, for it to find/remove anything. In contrast, once you install/update/enable SpywareBlaster, those things that it "protects" are continually protected --- but using essentially no CPU to do so! This is why SpywareBlaster "gets along" with just about any other anti-virus / anti-spyware programs you wish to run on your system.

Now, in contrast to both, the PAID version of MBAM --- and the trial version --- actively protect you from malware... running in real-time (using CPU). MBAM focuses on the "tough" malware (ransom-ware, Zlob/Vundo Trojans) that have a propensity of getting through people's anti-virus programs [both free as well as paid, including "big names" like Symantec and McAfee].

MBAM's database is updated several times (e.g. 10) a day. In contrast, SpywareBlaster typically updates its database only once in two or three weeks. MBAM also uses heuristics, so that it can "sense"/"smell" malware even without having a name/signature/fingerprint for it. SpywareBlaster does not attempt active/heuristic detections.

This is the SpywareBlaster forum. It's a good program. I use it. I recommend it. And I have nothing negative to say about it. But it's just not trying to do the same things as MBAM.

=========================

Here's a descriptive quote I just stumbled-upon at the MBAM forum http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=124093 :

"Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is not meant to be a replacement for antivirus software. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is a complementary but essential program which detects and removes zero-day malware and "Malware in the Wild". This includes malicious programs and files, such as virus droppers, worms, trojans, rootkits, dialers, spyware, and rogue applications that many antivirus programs do not detect or cannot fully remove.
That being said, there are many infections that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware does not detect or remove which any antivirus software will, such as file infectors. It is important to note that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware works well and should run alongside antivirus software without conflicts".

----
The bottom line: MBAM does not attempt to duplicate/replace an anti-virus. It doesn't even attempt to stop the easy/"typical" stuff, deferring that to one's anti-virus. Rather, it goes after the tough stuff that penetrate many anti-virus programs.

 

Thank Stapp, and yes I went there early on. One of the recommendations is layer. I do AV layering-- a no no --- and but since SB is the only real-time Anti-Bug( AB ) program i'm running I fall short on laying aspect there.

Sure I have free MNBAM for scanning afterwords, but I probably should consider another ABug to complement SBlaster.


I dunno if I will I will do that tho. The other good security is being smart on what to open and not open. That is really the first line of defense. Then SB( ABug ) and MSE + Avast after that.

I heard some negative stuff about Spybot, so, I'm reluctant to add something that will cause problems.

R6