Ie8: Ad Blocking With The Inprivate Filter - Spybot & InPrivate Filter?

[poolsharkzz]

To understand where I am going with this you must read this thread from another forum:

IE8: Ad blocking with the InPrivate Filter

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/inde...r/#entry253419

Then, you have to read this thread which clarifies a few points:

http://forum.abelhadigital.com/index...0#entry3355111

Questions:

1.) I have the idea of running both an updated Hosts File and this custom XML File - could the XML File somehow replace the Hosts File or is this whole thing nothing more than a redundancy that will slow down my browser?

2.) What about the immunization features some spyware programs have, like Spybot S&D and SpywareBlaster - are these a redundancy as well?

3.) Is the Mod from HostsMan Forums correct - is the immunization features of Spybot S&D as well as other nothing more than a redunancy?

4.) What about this new idea of using a custom XML File?

Could you break it all down for me?

OddTodd

[poolsharkzz]

From my eariler post:

1.) Which is better: The Host File, XML File, or Immunization?

I am thinking about performance and speed but also security...

2.) Can I run all 3? Please list the pros and cons.

Thanks again,

OddTodd

[poolsharkzz]

Look guys, this idea could be included with Spybot - adding to an otherwise "Top-Ten" security program.

I mean, it took me a whole 5 minutes to look over everything...

Just curious, could I get a response here?

Thanks,

poolsharkzz

[bitman]

I stopped using most of the blocking features such as Host files and Restricted Sites (Immunize) when IE7 came out, though IE8 has an even better set of protection for both Phishing and Malware in the SmartScreen Filter that's included.

You spend way too much time overthinking and overlapping too many security products when your biggest and most obvious security risk is that outmoded operating system, Windows XP. Just look at the first graph on this page at the Microsoft Malware Protection Center discussing the Security Intelligence Report and the trend is clear, old OS are simply a risk.

https://www.microsoft.com/security/p...hreat/SIR.aspx

Upgrade to Windows 7, throw on a good AV and maybe you'll get time to actually use your PC, not spend your life trying to secure it.

Bitman

[drragostea]

bitman's response just lit up the whole freaking world. ^^"

I love it.

[honda12]

I wouldn't go as far as calling these types of passive protection as redundant, but they are definately are heading that way. There are just too many infected sites for anyone to manage to write down in a suitable time-frame. You've got to remember, infected domains can appear today and be gone tomorrow - eventually a legitimate owner of a domain will find some of his/her's visitors are unable reach the site due to that domain being once used to distribute malware and therefore was placed on a list.

Another problem that passive protection lists face, traditionally host files, is that they are becoming so large that they are actually causing slow-downs - which I find odd: people don't want to become infected with malware that slows down their computers so they go overkill on protection that slows down their computers, essentially defeating their goal in the first place.

Like bitman said, various browsers already have systems in place to warn users of bad downloads or dangerous sites and there are plugins out there to also warn the user if the site they're visiting is bad (Web of Trust (WOT) comes to mind).

However flawed, I do still see some use in passive protection if used in a sensible manner and not counted as a primary defence - I, for example am a user of SpywareBlaster, but personally the fact that I haven't been infected in years I put down to other factors including the mantra that I live my life by (at least online!) that 'your first defence is your common sense'.

Don't go around visiting shady sites - you'll surely become infected - no matter how many domain blocking lists you have.

[bitman]

Hi honda12,

You've given some of the reasons that I've moved away from the use of block lists, but others include the fact that they require too much maintenance, since most of the tools aren't completely automated or require me to automate them. At a time when most everything being provided includes complete automation that works in a stable manner, I simply don't have the time to manually maintain my security any longer.

Your mention of 'passive' protection is a pet peeve, because that's another fallacy of these methods, since the code that operates them is simply shifted to the browser or another operating system component rather than being an 'active' component of the protection program itself. This doesn't lessen their overhead as you mentioned yourself, it simply shifts the blame.

Overall, the lack of speed in response and other things already mentioned above make me less than enthused with this approach. Since I try to use the applications I suggest to others, and many of these are unskilled users, I have little interest in systems that require user interaction to maintain on a regular basis.

However, as I stated in my post above, the real issue in this case is the outdated operating system, even though it is still supported by Microsoft. So many have become accustomed to maintaining a plethora of security applications to protect themselves when it would be far simpler to upgrade the operating system and gain not only better security, but also the other features that the newer os includes.

The Microsoft Security Intelligence Report (SIR) I linked above was just recently updated with the information from a more recent quarter and the new graph still shows quite clearly that the newer os versions are less affected by malware.

Bitman

[honda12]

Originally Posted by bitman

You've given some of the reasons that I've moved away from the use of block lists, but others include the fact that they require too much maintenance, since most of the tools aren't completely automated or require me to automate them. At a time when most everything being provided includes complete automation that works in a stable manner, I simply don't have the time to manually maintain my security any longer.

Ah yes. Maintenance. I suppose it has become second nature for me to perform an update n' scan with program x every week, especially after spending years instructing unskilled family and friends to do the same thing (with varying degrees of success).

I completely agree with your point on automation. People now expect automation rather than consider it as an 'added bonus'.

Like most things, cars, people, OSs, the older things become the more maintenance they need.

That Microsoft report is interesting reading, I had a skim through it. Thanks for the share.

[Rosenfeld]

Bitman,

Your advice to upgrade from XP is not always practical.

For example on my system (Dell XPS630i) Windows 7 advisor tells me that my nVidia 8800GT graphics card would not be able to use the aero feature So new video card required = $$.
My Office XP pro with several addons I use in Excel would need probably upgrading and several other applications I use would also need upgrading or do not yet offer Windows 7 compatibility (I suppose I could run them in the XP compatibility mode?) = more $$

Time spent learning new OS is also a disincentive.

I don't experience any slowdowns or conflicts, using mvps hosts file, Spybot immunize on my user account, SD helper (not teatimer) and Spywareblaster, with NAV 2010 and ZA.

XP pro SP3, IE 8

[bitman]

Hi Rosenfeld,

One glance at the specs of poolsharkzz system and I doubt he has your issue with hardware, though it really doesn't matter if you have areo or not to use most of the features Windows 7 would provide. I upgraded a much less capable system than yours to Windows Vista last year primarily for the better security it offered for my nephews, though I was already planning to purchase Office 2007 Home and Student anyway, since they needed Word.

In my experience, most home users don't have much more than free Internet downloadable applications and maybe Office (Word) anyway, though that will vary of course. I know that's true of my family members and most of my friends. Your setup sounds a bit more business oriented which is where most of these application upgrade issues occur.

My post was focused primarily on this particular user anyway, since he has obviously got the power available for whatever he does, but he's costing himself lots of time for little true security. However, I also suspect that's all he really does with the PC, so it may not matter anyway.

Bitman