SpywareBlaster Protection Compatibility Issue

[JohnBurns]

The latest update (6-17-2009) of Spybot seems to have an issue which disables some protection in SpywareBlaster. Has anyone else experienced this?

[ky331]

Yes, I can confirm that SpyBot's immunization removes protection from SpywareBlaster's IE restricted site
Red Sheriff (2) imrworldwide dot com

Such a conflict seems to occur every few weeks now. The last time a conflict was reported, there was a protracted debate on whether it was worth being concerned over the issue --- since, after all, it was only just one site. I do not wish to reopen any such debate here...

Our options at present are to leave it unprotected... or to re-protect in SpywareBlaster each time after using SpyBot's immunization

[drragostea]

I'd leave that site alone. It's going to be resolved sooner or later. bitman said he doubts that anyone will visit a handful of those sites in the Immunization/HOSTS file anytime soon.

Have a good day.

[bitman]

< SNIP >

Our options at present are to leave it unprotected... or to re-protect in SpywareBlaster each time after using SpyBot's immunization

Don't know why this seems to be so difficult. Easiest way is to simply always perform the Spybot Immunization first, then update SpywareBlaster, which will result in the combination of both sets of protection. Most users update these protections on the same day each week, so just do them in that order if you prefer to keep the out of date items that the Spybot S&D Team has already chosen to remove.

Personally I don't use either on a current OS, they're archaic systems from another era and totally un-neccesary if you've upgraded to Internet Explorer 8. The SmartScreen Filter in IE 8 (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/03/25/ie8-security-part-ix-anti-malware-protection-with-ie8-s-smartscreen-filter.aspx) can not only block sites, but even a specific URL at an otherwise reputable site, which is granularity not possible with either Restricted sites or Hosts file blocking. It's also kept current in an Internet accessible database, so it can be much larger and more quickly updated than a local static list updated weekly.

These older systems still have their place on older operating systems where Internet Explorer 8 isn't available or for those using third-party browsers which don't have these modern protections built-in. I simply see no reason to flood my registry and hosts file with huge lists of sites I'm unlikely to ever access, just on the chance I'll protect my PC from one or two of them.

But as I've also stated previously, this is precisely why Spybot S&D is designed in a modular fashion, so you can use such features or not as you please. I simply don't ascribe to the notion that 'more is better' when it comes to anti-malware protection.

Bitman