Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Will Not Immunize Hosts File

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT500 View Post
    Understandable.

    Just make sure to explore it at least a little bit before the final version of Spybot comes out. If it's not a compatibility issue, and winds up being a bug, then it's best that the Spybot team know about it before they release v1.5 as a final product.
    No one who understands me is [fill in the blank as you best see misfit...].

    Agreed, and I'll get to this today/tomorrow/"soon."

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Results of testing:

    1. Changed HOSTS from Read Only, to allow editing.

    2. Opened HOSTS in WordPad, removed all Spybot-supplied entries (except, of course, the "This was placed here by Spybot" and "Here Endeth The Spybotheth Entrieths."

    3. Saved now nearly-empty HOSTS file. Before I could actually save the file, the Spy Sweeper HOSTS shield caught the change, popped up, and asked if I wanted to allow the change; replied "yes," of course.

    4. Started Spybot, went to Immunization, saw that 6355 Windows Global (Hosts) entries were not immunized; all other entries were immunized.

    Started Immunization process. While I have no timings of earlier immunizations, nor of this one, I can state that this one ran considerably faster than previous attempts, even of attempts where there were many fewer entries to immunize.

    When Spybot was done immunizing (all 6355 entries done,) McAfee's System Guard pop-up appeared, asking if I wanted to allow the changes to the HOSTS file, to which I replied "allow."

    5. Checked HOSTS file properties; file reset to Read Only.

    This was the first time that I have seen either Spy Sweeper or McAfee question anything about the HOSTS file.

    What this proved is likely unknowable. I can only suspect some odd problem in the HOSTS file before I edited it today, or some other variable for which there is likely no solution.

    I can only state again, as I did above, that the Immunization process ran quickly and faultlessly. I can also wonder what may transpire when the next Spybot update is available (not the program, a data update.)

  3. #13
    Member GT500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I assume that you left the HOSTS file set as writable (aka. non-read-only)? If so, that might be why it worked faster. It may also be why there were less issues this time around. Perhaps, now that the HOSTS file is read-only again, you might see this issue cop up with the next database update.

    Personally, I would disable McAfee's HOSTS file protection (if possible). It may just be that having two security softwares monitoring and protecting your HOSTS file is causing a weird conflict. There are also other issues with McAfee, but I won't go into them here and now.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Yes, I left the HOSTS file as writable; I'm not certain when it reverted to Read Only. Thus, I don't know if it was writable during the immunization process, and wonder if it now being read-only might affect future updates.

    As for McAfee, yes, I'm aware that some people have issues with it. I've been using it for many years, with practically no issues, and as it continues to look good in terms of tests run by various organizations, I have no reason to change to something else. I know of no anti-virus/firewall/etc. programs that don't have issues. I find it amusing to read about, say, program "A", which is highly praised by many, hated by others, and so on.

    And, again, as today was the only time that I've seen McAfee ask about modifying the file, yes it is possible that it is creating a conflict, but I have no way of knowing. I will be interested to see if future immunizations also cause McAfee to query me about changing the file.

    Chuckle, chuckle: I was just about to send this missive when I noted that I had just received an email from this system. I checked that email, and, as I suspected, found that it was a notification that you had posted the message to which I was responding. I guess I need to go back in time, wait for your email, and then write this....

  5. #15
    Member GT500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Like I said before, I won't go into the McAfee issue heavily right now (unless you want me to). I am a bit curious as to why you mention that it gets good reviews. McAfee Enterprise Edition failed it's February 2007 Virus Bulletin certification (they don't test the home editions), and it's performance has been the slowest for years. I find it odd that anyone who tests multiple anti-virus softwares would give McAfee a good review (unless they were testing the Enterprise Edition)...

    As far as the e-mail, I guess that's what you call delayed reaction.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    60

    Default

    First, I'm not talking the Enterprise edition, but the home one; second, for every revue of nearly every antivirus program, one can easily find another that contradicts the first. Enough said.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •