Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by javacool, Dec 7, 2019.
You been around for what seems like ages. With purpose! Great job!
1.) Win10 Pro x64 v1909 Build 18363.476
2.) UAC = Max setting
3.) Emsisoft Anti-Malware, HitmanPro.Alert, Blackfog Privacy ... (no messages, but will try disabling these one by one).
4.) Not that I can think of
6.) Local account
Edit: In v5.5, Google Chrome didn't show up at one point, and you advised to add a registry setting ...
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...indows-10-and-more.385942/page-2#post-2646085 (... and prior posts)
Maybe this is now the culprit?
Disabling all security softs, or lowering UAC, and opening SB: Google Chrome still shows as 'Admin Required', but as I say it started happening recently in v5.5, so it is not a v5.6 problem.
When I want to install version 5.6 on windows 10 I get this:
No problem, just click 'More information' and then 'Run Anyway'
SmartScreen just blocking it due to its rarity, or 'newness'.
I still can't visualize it. Will it add rules to my hostfile for example? Or will it make blocking rules in the Win Firewall?
Thanks for that.
I would buy a licence to support SpywareBlaster but I think it's really too expensive ...
I see we are still only receiving updates for Internet Explorer.
... and no further response to #27.
I had issues with Chrome in v5.5 before (solved by @javacool here): https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...indows-10-and-more.385942/page-2#post-2646085
Wondering if it is related?
... so there is no enhanced protection for Firefox and Chrome? What a pity!
Thanks, I forgot to reply. But is there any advantage to this, when compared to uBlock?
I lost interest in SpywareBlaster, long time. I only installed 5.6 to see whats what.
Just trying to support the old soft, but agree, it probably has had its day.
OK cool. That's exactly why I asked, because AFAIK a tool like uBlock will block trackers and the browser itself should block third party cookies if configured correctly. So I don't see any advantage.
I assume when each time you refer to 'UBlock' you are referring to uBlock Origin:
Edit: OK, I don't think you are a Firefox user, but the question still applies.
SpywareBlaster and SpyBot, best protection 15 years ago ...
Yes correct, I'm talking about uBlock Origin, I forgot that there is also another one called uBlock. I never really understood how this is possible, extensions shouldn't be allowed to have almost the same name.
Any projection on a release date with MS Edge Chromium protection
I don't have an ETA I can share, but I'll let you know when a beta is available. (And if anyone else is interested in testing a beta, please feel free to send me a PM.)
Still no answer to #27?: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...indows-10-and-more.423908/page-2#post-2877758
See also #35 ...
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you - we have not been able to reproduce this yet on our systems at all, so we're trying to track down potential causes. (The registry setting should not be the culprit, but we've improved Chrome detection so it should no longer be needed.)
(SpywareBlaster does various permission / privilege checks - those haven't changed between 5.5 and 5.6. Since it started happening at one point while using 5.5 on your system, clearly something changed - on your system - that's leading those checks to fail with insufficient permissions. It's a bit curious, and I do still wonder if it has to do with third-party software.)
Will reset hosts file with Malwarebytes AdwCleaner v220.127.116.11 cause any problems with the way SpywareBlaster works.
There should not be any issues. The only aspect of SpywareBlaster that even potentially touches the HOSTS file is the "Hosts Safe" tool.
Separate names with a comma.