Question about immunizing after update

[ky331]

Voltra,

to try to pacify your mind as to what's happening here:

I don't believe that anyone --- short of outright paranoia --- undoes immunization before each weekly update. (and as just pointed out, even taking this extreme measure might not suffice in removing 100% of all entries)

So what happens when an entry is left over ("orphaned")? One recent example [a dispute between SpyBot and SpywareBlaster] was immunization offering protection from a website which had been discontinued by its owner. One of these programs (I don't recall the details) removed it, on the basis that the website was no longer "alive"; the other program retained it, saying blocking against a "dead" site couldn't hurt anything.

in the case of this particular update, which md...fan has identified as blocking zeropop.dll, the only reason to be concerned is if you are actually using [or at some future point, wish to use] its underlying program, which is apparently some form of "parental control" package to control/restrict use of internet explorer.

Granted, this might be deemed "rationalizing" what some will claim to be a defect --- ideally, a program should be able to remove all traces of anything it put there in the first place. But what I'm trying to say is that, unless you plan on using that particular parental control program [in which case, you might need to remove the immunization via editing your registry], there's really nothing to be concerned about here.

[voltra]

Voltra,

to try to pacify your mind as to what's happening here:

I don't believe that anyone --- short of outright paranoia --- undoes immunization before each weekly update. (and as just pointed out, even taking this extreme measure might not suffice in removing 100% of all entries)

So what happens when an entry is left over ("orphaned")? One recent example [a dispute between SpyBot and SpywareBlaster] was immunization offering protection from a website which had been discontinued by its owner. One of these programs (I don't recall the details) removed it, on the basis that the website was no longer "alive"; the other program retained it, saying blocking against a "dead" site couldn't hurt anything.

in the case of this particular update, which md...fan has identified as blocking zeropop.dll, the only reason to be concerned is if you are actually using [or at some future point, wish to use] its underlying program, which is apparently some form of "parental control" package to control/restrict use of internet explorer.

Granted, this might be deemed "rationalizing" what some will claim to be a defect --- ideally, a program should be able to remove all traces of anything it put there in the first place. But what I'm trying to say is that, unless you plan on using that particular parental control program [in which case, you might need to remove the immunization via editing your registry], there's really nothing to be concerned about here.

I'm not concerned about this particular update, more the fact that some point in the future it could affect me and then I might have to play around in the registry to fix it. The immunization feature is, in my opinion, the most important feature of Spybot (Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is what I usually scan with), so I was surprised to find out it has a defect like that.