IE8 extremely slow loading, and opening new tabs after Immunization done

[btuner]

IE7 loaded in under 1 second.

IE8 was extremely slow loading, and opening new tabs.

IE8 was taking up to 8 to 10 seconds to open on my 2.40 Gig Quad Core, 4 GB, Ram Vista system until I did an 'Immunize Undo' backing out the immunized items.

IE8 loads in under 2 seconds with Spybot SDhelper off and Immunization
not done.

If you immunize the the Hosts file, IE8 startup slows way down.

[md usa spybot fan]

See the discussion in this thread:
Spybot Immunize Plus IE 8 Final Equals Disaster On WinXP SP3
http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=46906

[btuner]

IE8 is only slow with Spybot immunization, not any other Anti-Spyware or Anti-Virus programs, I run, which are:

Norton Internet Security, Norton Safe-Web, SpyBlaster, Super Anti-Spyware, Norton Anti-Bot, Malware Bytes Real Time, Win Patrol do not slow down IE8 on XP SP3 or Vista, IE8 is only slow with Spybot immunization.

So that tells me SpyBot has problem.

I think it is the 10,000 items in the Hosts file immunization, is causing
the majority of the problem.

I do not think Microsoft will fix this issue as they do not recommend using
the Hosts file for protection activities.

[md usa spybot fan]

btuner:

The problem has nothing to do with the HOSTS file entries. IE8 is unable to handle the number of entries being placed in the Restricted Sites zone. Spybot adds entries to the Restricted Sites zone with immunization items identified as Domains, IPs, and Secure Domains.

[btuner]

Well.....I have sad news and bad news....Microsoft will not be changing
for little SpyBot, when IE8 works with the other MS approved security programs as per my earlier post.

Loading 10 of 1000s of entries in the Restricted Sites or Hosts files area
of IE is not considered a good design method for a security programs per MS.

Fighting Microsoft is a waste of time; if your program goes against
their specs for program design, they will not even listen to you, so
Spybot should just get on with making the needed changes. I
know this from 38 years in this business, first dealing
IBM/DEC and then 25+ years of dealings with Microsoft.

Dave

MCSE, MCDBA, MCP etc etc.....

[PepiMK]

And what would the "needed changes" be? The only changes we could make is remove the immunization completely.

As for bad design, our website lists our statement (http://forums.spybot.info/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=301124).

[btuner]

Yes, I read your statement, but that does not change the situation.

Microsoft is not going to change their software for you or any
developer if the other Microsoft approved developers are not having
an issue.

Yes, immunization is a good thing but Spybot need to do some redesign,
such as prefetching the bad site list into the SDHELPER and removing mass
enteries from the Hosts plus Restricted IE area.

Spybot is such an excellent program !!!!!!

I suggest you make the changes, stop trying to fight Microsoft, as that is
battle you just will not win.

[PepiMK]

Exactly who is fighting Microsoft here?

And please read again - SDHelper does already use this list as well. And yes, it prefetches the list instead of loading it each time.

Immunization is another layer of protection. Hosts, Immunization, SDHelper are three layers of the same. There is malware attacking each layer, but rarely all, so we prefer multiple layers. You suggested using SDHelper instead - well, that can be easily attacked - due to another bug in Internet Explorer actually that allows BHOs to attack/influence other BHOs much too easily (a malware plugin could very easily prevent other security plugins from seeing which pages are accessed for example - even some legit buggy plugins misbehave that way).

As for what Microsoft is changing or not changing - this is not about something they would have to change for us - it's an implementation failure independent of us. And Microsoft does not even fix issues that every single Windows user has - just take a look at my blog about the buffer overflow which I reported about IE, but which actually goes down deep into the kernel.

Btw: issue 377 (http://forums.spybot.info/project.php?issueid=377).