Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Enormous slow down after immunizing Firefox!

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Dresden, Germany
    Posts
    1

    Default Enormous slow down after immunizing Firefox!

    Today I downloaded the new 1.5 version of Spybot S&D and tried the "improved" immunization feature. After immunizing Firefox, I noticed that it took significantly longer to load a page.

    The reason is that 6,153 bad domains are added to the image blocklist, the popup blocklist and the XPI installation blocklist, which means that Firefox has to look through a list af almost 20,000 entries in total on every page load.

    But the really bad thing is: This is absolutely unnecassary! Since the domains are already in the hosts file and thus are routed to 127.0.0.1, there is no chance for Firefox to load anything from those sites, no matter if images, cookies, installations, or whatever are on the blocklists. I have not tested the reaction of other browsers, but I noticed that Spybot S&D does the same here: It unnecessarily adds entries to browsers' internal blocklists although those entries are already in the hosts file.

    Please fix this with an upcoming update and prevent this completely useless slowdown from happening.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7

    Default Agreed

    Agreed. When you "immunize" Firefox, over 19,000 lines are added to your hostperm.1 file. This can have a pronounced negative effect on browsing/rendering speeds because that entire file is parsed every time a page is loaded.

    A post from another newsgroup:
    "Much of Spybot's immunization for Firefox is redundant and unnecessary.
    Software installation and pop-ups are forbidden by default, so it makes
    no sense to forbid them for specific sites, which is what Spybot does.
    It might make sense to enable the 'Cookies' immunization and possibly
    'Images' (it mostly forbids images from porn sites), but 'Popups' and
    'Installations' make no sense whatsoever IMHO. If you forgo those two
    immunizations, the performance hit will be significantly reduced."

  3. #3
    Spybot Advisor Team Zenobia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,178

    Default

    You could try unimmunizing just Firefox,or unimmunizing parts of it.The only way I could find to do that in the Immunizing section,was to uncheck everything else except the checkmarked Firefox entries,and then click Undo.If you rightclick,and select deselect all,then go back and checkmark just the Firefox entries then click undo,it makes it go quicker.

    After that,I did still have a large amount of entries still in the hostperm.1 file that look quite Spybotty though,I noticed,here's just a couple of them:
    host image 2 f*ckdenniss.com
    host image 2 f*cknicepics.com
    host image 2 free-f*cking-video.com
    host image 2 needf*cknow.com
    host image 2 satisf*cktion.net
    host image 2 .tjdo.com
    host image 2 .ebav.com
    host image 2 .ebgo.com
    host image 2 .ebaw.com
    host image 2 .ebkb.com
    host image 2 .ebmu.com
    host image 2 .ecmp.com
    host image 2 .edhq.com
    host image 2 .edty.com
    I'd assume those should be removed after removing Firefox immunization,but I don't know enough about Firefox immunization to say that for absolute certain,and I don't have a slowdown on Firefox with Spybot's immunization to check that out for you.
    Someone on Mozillazine forums mentioned having to edit out the Spybot entries in hostperm.1 to gain back performance,but like they said that could be tricky if you're not sure what to remove,as you might edit out entries that really should stay in there if they were added by something else other than Spybot:
    http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewto...44d454a51c4f95

    But the really bad thing is: This is absolutely unnecassary! Since the domains are already in the hosts file and thus are routed to 127.0.0.1, there is no chance for Firefox to load anything from those sites, no matter if images, cookies, installations, or whatever are on the blocklists.
    I prefer not to add the Spybot hosts list by personal choice,so that really doesn't work for me,and prefer that there is a choice to immunize/unimmunize Firefox instead,though I might be in the minority there.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Yodama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Buchenheim
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    this is odd,

    just checked the performance on Firefox 2.0.0.4 on Windows XP Pro SP2 when immunized with Spybot 1.5.
    Opened multiple tabs (about 12), browsed and switched between the tabs. There appeared to be no performance loss at all.
    The test computer has a AMD X2 4200+ with 512MB Ram.
    The hostperm.1 file is 592KB after immunisation.

    @PIGSgrame
    could you specify your computer's configuration to determine the peformane loss? And could you specify
    I noticed that it took significantly longer to load a page.
    ?
    Are we talking about seconds, minutes or else?

    This appears to be an issue which does not happen on every configuration, so your help in finding a reason for this is appreciated.

    @Zenobia

    After that,I did still have a large amount of entries still in the hostperm.1 file that look quite Spybotty though,I noticed,here's just a couple of them:
    host image 2 f*ckdenniss.com
    host image 2 f*cknicepics.com
    host image 2 free-f*cking-video.com
    host image 2 needf*cknow.com
    host image 2 satisf*cktion.net
    host image 2 .tjdo.com
    host image 2 .ebav.com
    these entries will not be added with the Spybot version 1.5.15 and thus do not get removed after unimmunization. These could have been added when you used the beta or RC. Can you confirm this?

    I prefer not to add the Spybot hosts list by personal choice,so that really doesn't work for me,and prefer that there is a choice to immunize/unimmunize Firefox instead,though I might be in the minority there.
    I agree that the user is supposed to have the choice to immunize/add the Spybot hosts list as he pleases, thus giving a more personalized level of security.


    What mightyglydd wrote in theses forums (uninstalling 1.5 and reinstalling 1.4): http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewto...44d454a51c4f95
    is not recommended since the level of immunization can be chosen and Spybot 1.5 has better routines for removal and detection of malicious software.
    born in the shadow to die in the shadow, that is the fate of the shinobi

    Spybot S&D Downloads

    Please help us improve Spybot and download our distributed testing client.

  5. #5
    Spybot Advisor Team Zenobia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,178

    Default

    Yes,they're probably from the beta or rc.I remember now,when unimmunizing it got stuck,so I uninstalled and installed the new Spybot without unimmunizing.

    After unimmunizing and editing out the Spybot entries in hostperm.1,the entries are removed/added as they should be when immunizing/unimmunizing.Thanks.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5

    Default

    I have Firefox 2.0.0.6 and Spybot 1.5.1.15 installed. I never installed a beta or rc and I am having a significant slowdown in Firefox.

    1.4 never did this, but after immunizing with 1.5 there is a noticable slowdown in loading pages and switching tabs. This does not occur in IE7.

    It is an extended pause when switching tabs or loading pages. I unimmunized and the slow down was gone. When I immunized again, the slowdown was back.

  7. #7
    Spybot Advisor Team [Retired] md usa spybot fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,859

    Default

    Tigreseis:

    Quote Originally Posted by tigreseis View Post
    I have Firefox 2.0.0.6 ... and I am having a significant slowdown in Firefox.

    1.4 never did this, but after immunizing with 1.5 there is a noticable slowdown in loading pages and switching tabs. ...
    Just so that you aware, there was no immunization for Firefox in Spybot releases prior to Spybot 1.5. Therefore the fact that "... 1.4 never did this, …" is irrelevant.

    Trying to determine the possible cause(s) of what you are experiencing vs. others who are not experiencing a problem is not a question of coding differences for Firefox immunization between Spybot 1.4 and Spybot 1.5, but rather the differences between the versions of Firefox, the system's OS (Operating System), system capacity or some other yet to be determined factor for the implementation of Firefox immunization in Spybot 1.5.

    Pehaps it would be helpful if you provided more detail about the system where you are experiencing the problem.
    Last edited by md usa spybot fan; 2007-09-11 at 19:35.

    Getting an answer is one thing, learning is another.


    Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition running on a 2.40GHz Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with 512 MB of RAM and a 533 MHz System Bus.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by md usa spybot fan View Post
    Tigreseis:


    Just so that you aware, there was no immunization for Firefox in Spybot releases prior to Spybot 1.5. Therefore the fact that "... 1.4 never did this, …" is irrelevant.

    Trying to determine the possible cause(s) of what you are experiencing vs. others who are not experiencing a problem is not a question of coding differences for Firefox immunization between Spybot 1.4 and Spybot 1.5, but rather the differences between the versions of Firefox, the system's OS (Operating System), system capacity or some other yet to be determined factor for the implementation of Firefox immunization in Spybot 1.5.

    Pehaps it would be helpful if you provided more detail about the system where you are experiencing the problem.
    I didn't mean to imply that 1.4 immunized Firefox. I was merely stating that I never had a slowdown issue in 1.4, but with the advent of immunization in 1.5, I have. Since "undo"ing the immunization on Firefox there is no issue. Now as to my system:

    I have an HP dv4000 laptop running XP Professional with 1gb memory and a 2ghz processor. I use Firefox 2.0.0.6 and IE7.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default Same problem over here

    I just reformatted my dell inspiron 8500 2.2 Ghz and 512 MB Ram and reinstalled WinXP. The first thing i did was install all drivers, install firefox and install all security updates for windows.

    After reboot i installed my trusty Spybot S&D (v 1.5.1.15) , downloaded new updates (no beta or rc1) and immunized all. My Firefox was instantly crippled!! Not only did simple pages like google take 5 to 10 seconds longer to load but mere tab switching on pages already loaded in those tabs took about 3-5 secs depending on the page.

    Solution: As stated above all i needed to do was to disable all firefox related immunizations

    Still this is a major problem!

    I can't give a recommendation to people without a warning. Which means i don't recommend this product anymore because i don't want the tech support phone calls phone calls.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Please note: I am not being argumentative, merely raising a few points:

    1. I use Firefox 2.0.0.6 (.7 has not yet shown up).

    2. I use Spybot 1.5.1.15.

    3. I immunize Firefox, which causes no noticeable slowdowns.

    Ergo, I have to question what is actually causing Firefox slowdowns. That is is what I mean by not being argumentative, as I am not stating that some Firefox/Spybot users are not seeing slowdowns.

    Thus, I believe that some more testing needs to be done by those who are encountering the problem of slowness in Firefox when immunized by Spybot.

    My suspicion, and it is nothing more than that, is that those who are seeing slowness in Firefox have one or more problems in their Firefox profile, extensions, or themes.

    The first thing to do is to start Firefox in Safe Mode, which disables most such items. If, and only if, the slowness is no longer seen, then it is time to start disabling extensions and/or changing themes, to see if an interference can be found.

    On the other hand, if no difference in speed is seen when running FF in safe mode, then the next test is to create a new FF profile, immunize that new profile with Spybot, then see if the slowness is still there. If, and again only if, the slowness remains, then at least there would be some reasonable conclusion that something in Spybot is indeed the proximate cause of the problem.

Posting Permissions

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