Regdefend redundant with Spysweeper's autostart protection ?

Discussion in 'Ghost Security Suite (GSS)' started by vince35, Apr 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vince35

    vince35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Posts:
    55
    Location:
    France (Breizh)
    Hi

    I have Spysweeper on my PC and wonder if its registry protection (autostart keys) would not be redundant with Regdefend or similar (Diamonds registryprotect) ?

    thx ! :) ar
     
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    if SS monitors the autorun entries in the registry then yes it would be redundant.
     
  3. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,051
    Unless they've changed it SpySweeper uses polling, which puts a slight load on the cpu, but also allows changes between polling interval. I've been able to manually change IE's home page and change it back before SS caught it. Not so with Regdefend.
     
  4. vince35

    vince35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Posts:
    55
    Location:
    France (Breizh)
    thanks for your replys :)

    just another one :

    Peter2150 you mean :

    Polling = Spysweeper scans registry at time intervalls

    while

    Regdefend watches constantly the registry ?


    EDIT : Ok, I found the answer here http://www.ghostsecurity.com/index.php?page=regdefend

    So, in this task of watching autostart registry entries, Regdefend should be better than Spysweeper ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2006
  5. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    since regdefend uses a hook as opposed to polling, it also uses ur CPU at lot less.

    also since RegDefend already protects many other entries than just the autorun section, u should just disable SS' startup list protection.
     
  6. TopperID

    TopperID Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,527
    Location:
    London
    Yes.
    RD prevents changes to protected areas of Registry from occuring in the first place; unless you give permission. RD is not looking for changes that have already taken place - which is what a 'poller' is looking for.
    Yes, better protection, but I wouldn't necessarily talk of redundancy because they are doing things differently. Thus if you disable your security while you do an installation RD will not inform you of any Registry changes that happen while it is disabled. However a 'poller' is looking for changes and therefore will find them as soon as you re-enable it again.

    Let me give a specific example, when I upgraded Sun Java I switched off RD and CounterSpy to do the installation. When I swithed them on again CounterSpy immediately informed me that I had some new Active X and a new BHO installed. I was then able to check that these were legitimate. RD would not have notified me of this change to my system. So you see that pollers do have their uses; as to whether it is worth tying up resources for this kind of thing is another matter though!
     
  7. vince35

    vince35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Posts:
    55
    Location:
    France (Breizh)
    many thanks for your explanations ! ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.