XTROcash (2) unchecked in spywareblaster due to SpyBot?

[reygeko]

With the last update of SpyBot, a restricted site of spywareblaster has been unchecked.

The specific site is:

XTROcash (2) -----> xtrocash.host.sk

I've read other posts where this has happened before.

Why does this happen?

Thanks.

[Smirnoff]

I'm seeing the same thing.

It may be that it's the same problem that was reported about 5starvideo.com.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=219532

I know Spybot and SpywareBlaster are two different products but as they often conflict, it would be nice if they could both get their acts together.

[reygeko]

I know Spybot and SpywareBlaster are two different products but as they often conflict, it would be nice if they could both get their acts together.

Agreed.

[bitman]

If either of you had bothered to really read the thread you linked to at the SpywareBlaster forum, you'd understand why this happens. It's really very simple, when one of the programs removes an outdated entry it will cause the other to see that entry as needing to be reinstalled.

Though it might be nice if both programs attempted to stay in sync, this extra effort really isn't worth the trouble. Since the update cycles of the two programs will never be in perfect sync, it wouldn't really matter if they tried to remove entries at the same time, because this problem would still occur for some period of time.

What needs to happen is that you need to understand the programs you are using, what they are doing and thus why this situation can occur. If you can't, then one of the posts in the other forum is correct and you should simply remove one or the other program. Better yet, simply remove the Immunization done by Spybot Search and Destroy and only use SpywareBlaster for that purpose going forward. This way you get the antispyware protection of Spybot S&D and the larger set of Restricted Sites provided by SpywareBlaster combined.

Personally, what I've always done is to update Spybot S&D first, then update SpywareBlaster. This way I get the combined lists of both and since SpywareBlaster is usually behind, a few extra entries that might not be worth having. Out of several thousand entries, that's not really a big deal. If I thought it was I'd remove SpywareBlaster since they're usually behind, but then I'd loose the hundreds of additional entries they provide, so that's the trade-off.

Bitman

[reygeko]

Having a bad day bitman? I think my thread is not to agressive to react that way...

It has a title which requests help and with a post giving the information and making a question.

I agreed with Smirnoff that the developers should help each other. Why? Well, because a conflict does exist.

Personally, before I created this topic, I had already read the link to spywareblaster's forum that Smirnoff suggested. And not once, but many times. Why? Because this conflict is not new.

Why I created this thread? Because I want this problem to get fixed in a proper way. Not to ignore it.

[Matt]

Hi,

you are protected against dangerous downloads from

xtrocash.host.sk

Either from Spybot or from SpywareBlaster.

Javacool already did this problem on his "to do list" for the next update or release. So relax.

Best regards,
-Matt-

[bitman]

Having a bad day bitman? I think my thread is not to agressive to react that way...

It has a title which requests help and with a post giving the information and making a question.

I agreed with Smirnoff that the developers should help each other. Why? Well, because a conflict does exist.

Personally, before I created this topic, I had already read the link to spywareblaster's forum that Smirnoff suggested. And not once, but many times. Why? Because this conflict is not new.

Why I created this thread? Because I want this problem to get fixed in a proper way. Not to ignore it.

It can't be fixed, that's the entire point which you're obviously unable to understand.

Think about it for just a small moment. What if every security application tried to resolve all such issues with every other security application every time they released a new update? They'd have to spend an entire week verifying everything they intend to update before they release, basically removing the value of timliness of the update completely.

This is so obviously pointless it's amazing that you can't see it. This 'conflict' is nothing but a single entry removed by one, but not the other. Who cares? Just ignore it and decide if you want Spybot S&D or SpywareBlaster to be 'in charge' and run their update last. This will result in the same thing you want without any of the wasted effort on the part of either organization.

Bitman

[drragostea]

For me, it's only one site (XTROCash) that's "unimmunized". It seems that even though you attempt you Immunize all for SpywareBlaster, it'll still show as partially protected if you should open Spybot's Immunzation feature.

My conclusion: get over it. [Some] People are getting paranoid because it is merely one site. What are the chances of you falling into that site (not very big at all) and getting infected (very little)? bitman certainly has a point because it'll be both a waste of time and a consummation of effort to "sync" with one another (the updates).

[bitman]

For me, it's only one site (XTROCash) that's "unimmunized". It seems that even though you attempt you Immunize all for SpywareBlaster, it'll still show as partially protected if you should open Spybot's Immunzation feature.

The reason this happens when you open the Immunize screen is to avoid 'garbage collection' by the Spybot S&D Immunization. If the only way to remove outdated items were to Undo Immunization using the previous set of updates before the new updates were downloaded, most everyone would eventually have dozens of these 'ophan' entries contained in their registry.

To avoid this issue, a major version or two ago this automatic removal of outdated entries was added to the initial Immunize scan. This avoids the problem without having to teach everyone to Undo/Immunize for every new update.

I don't know how JavaCool deals with this issue in SpywareBlaster.

Bitman

[Terminator]

I have this problem as well and I'm glad it's going to be fixed soon.