View Full Version : Unable to immunize to existing previous updated hosts in Windows 2000 SP4?
Hi!
Is it me or is the latest non-beta SpyBot having problems immunizing its last week's hosts file in an updated Windows 2000 SP4? I had to restore original hosts file before modified by Spybot and immunized.
Last week, I couldn't add one line to the global hosts file. Last night, I couldn't add 38 lines. I attached a zipped file copy of last week's hosts file that I tried to update last night.
Thank you in advance. :)
Yesterday, I tried to update again with the latest updates and SpyBot showed 30 entries in the hosts file.
No one know what's up? :(
drragostea
2008-11-02, 18:53
Spybot>Immunize tab> and click on the Immunize button (Green Cross). If not, Undo the Immunization and Redo it.
Do you have any other software that may be conflicting? Webroot SpySweeper? ZoneAlarm?
Terminator
2008-11-02, 19:14
Just to add to that list, the Comodo Pro Firewall also has a conflict with Spybot's Immunizing feature if the Firewall and Defence+ features are not placed in Training mode and Installation mode activated.
Spybot>Immunize tab> and click on the Immunize button (Green Cross). If not, Undo the Immunization and Redo it.
Do you have any other software that may be conflicting? Webroot SpySweeper? ZoneAlarm?I did use that Immune tab. How do you think I immuned? :P I also tried undo and reimmune, but that takes longer than restoring my original hosts backup file. :( It seems it can't immunize fully if SpyBot already has its own lines from previous immunizations.
drragostea
2008-11-03, 02:20
Spybot>Immunize tab> and click on the Immunize button (Green Cross). If not, Undo the Immunization and Redo it.
Did you read my post? I said, Immunize and click on the Immunize button again, which means Immunizing again.
The tab will only show you your status, while clicking on the green cross literally Immunizes.
Also, is there any software that may be conflicting?
Did you read my post? I said, Immunize and click on the Immunize button again, which means Immunizing again.
The tab will only show you your status, while clicking on the green cross literally Immunizes.
Also, is there any software that may be conflicting?Yes, I did that since I wanted to get zero unprotected values.
As for software. The only thing I can think of is: Palm HotSync, Symantec Norton AntiVirus CE, wireless network stuff, etc.
drragostea
2008-11-03, 02:43
It didn't work did it? :sad: I apologize, but I'm out of ideas. I hope someone will step up and see if they can resolve your query.
It didn't work did it? :sad: I apologize, but I'm out of ideas. I hope someone will step up and see if they can resolve your query.Oh well, thanks anyways. I wonder why it has no problems with a default untampered hosts file.
Does SpyBot have debugging or logs for immunization?
drragostea
2008-11-03, 03:03
Does SpyBot have debugging or logs for immunization?
Not that I'm aware of.
Next time try this:
1) Open a Windows Command Prompt via Start Menu, Accessories.
2)Then type the folllowing command at the prompt:
net stop dnscache
3)Then attempt the Immunize again to add the entries to hosts.
You may then either 'net start dnscache' or simply allow the next reboot to restart the DNS Caching process.
The key issue here is the overload of the Windows 2000 DNS Cache by the thousands of entries contained in the Spybot S&D hosts file additions. This will be even worse if an alternative hosts file with even more entries is also used.
The reason is that the Windows operating system was never designed to be 'stuffed' in this way with thousands of entries in hosts or Restricted Sites either for that matter. This was a great idea when there were only a few hundred sites needing to be blocked, but started to break down (with SBSD) on older (W2K) systems with limited processing power as much as two years (over a thousand additional sites) ago.
Disabling the DNS Cache really doesn't have a major negative effect, since re-reading the hosts file isn't especially worse than the issues created by trying to maintain this number of entries in the cache. However, I really question the value of such a system now that a list of several thousand entries is being maintained locally on the chance that you might either mistakenly visit or be redirected to one or more of these sites.
What I'm saying is not that the idea is 'wrong', it's just of questionable value when the entire list must be maintained on the local PC and since the updates only come weekly, it's really not dynamic enough to deal with the current 'fast-flux' botnets and other quickly changing dangerous hosts.
It seems to me that the only effective way to maintain such lists is Internet based, such as the Phishing lists from Microsoft (Internet Explorer 7), McAfee Site Advisor and others. I only use it on Windows 2000 since I can't install IE 7 and I don't wish to bother with an add-in anti-phishing application on such an old, lightly used PC.
Bitman