Spyware Definitions marked in red

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by Baldrick, Jan 30, 2004.

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

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,675
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Hi there :D

    I am new to SpywareBlaster, having just installed it, and have noticed that there are a number of the spyware definitions (and all the cookie definitions) are marked in red/not automatically selected for protection when you press the Protect option. Why is that? o_O

    Is it because it is better not to protect from these, that one should be careful protecting against these as they can cause trouble or should individual users make their own choice. As a newbie in this area I would be most grateful for any advice/guidance that forum members can provide. :D

    Thank you in anticipation.

    Best regards


    Baldrick
     
    Baldrick, Jan 30, 2004
    #1
  2. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    The red just means it's something SpywareBlaster can protect against but isn't protecting against it right now. If you select all and "protect against checked" then you're covered. Everytime you update the definitions, you will have more red unchecked items and will need to "select all" and "protect against checked."
     
    Detox, Jan 30, 2004
    #2
  3. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,675
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Thanks Dettox

    I think that I get the message that one should really check all definition. I am just intrigued as to the reason why SpywareBlaster choses to protect against some by default whilst leaving others up to user choice?

    Any thoughts or explanation?

    Just curious.

    Regards


    Baldrick
     
    Baldrick, Jan 30, 2004
    #3
  4. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,278
    Location:
    New England
    Hi Baldrick,

    There could be a couple things going on here... First, if the first time you ran SpywareBlaster, some items were checked but most weren't, then that could be because you ran some other tool that provided some of the same protections, but not all. Such as the Immunize protection in Spybot S&D, or some other blocker software. SpywareBlaster does not set any items by default. If they are set already, then some other software set them.

    If you are able to "Select All" and "Protect Against Checked Items!" and all items do get selected, and then go checked and turn black, then that is normal SpywareBlaster behavior. However, if the "cookies" all stay Red and unchecked no matter what you do, then your system isn't allowing the cookie protections to be set. The most common reason is that SpywareBlaster only adds cookie protections for IE6. (Previous versions on Internet Explorer, like 5.0 or 5.5 can't take this cookie protection.)

    So, do the cookie items stay red, no matter what you do to try to protect them? Are you running IE v6?
     
    LowWaterMark, Jan 30, 2004
    #4
  5. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Hmmm I don't recall mine not protecting against any except when I updated :doubt:

    I think when I installed it was protecting against all; but I could be wrong.

    My best guess is there's no real reason that some aren't protected from start, but I'll hafta let Javacool answer for sure in case there is some real explanation.
     
    Detox, Jan 30, 2004
    #5
  6. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,675
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    LowWaterMark, Detox :D

    Thank you both for the response. You are both correct in your own way. Firstly, LowWaterMark is correct about the immunise function in SpyBot S&D which I did indeed have set. In fact on that panel Peter Kolla advises that if you are also running SpywareBlaster then to let it do the job as it protects against much more spyware (1133 vs 507 on current definitions). I did that and then selected all in SpywareBalster and presto. I therefore suspect that Detox is correct in that you should have no issues normally assuming that normally means that you do not have the immunise function set up in SB S&D.

    Thanks again for your help. It is much appreciated. :cool:

    Best regards



    Baldrick
     
    Baldrick, Jan 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    All the same, my friend, tell LWM to stop following me around :p

    But seriously I think there are no real issues to be addressed here.. If anything doesn't "default" as protected, I'm personally quite sure it needs protected all the same :D
     
    Detox, Jan 30, 2004
    #7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...