XTROcash (2) unchecked in spywareblaster due to SpyBot?

[ChalupaPatrol]

If either of you had bothered to really read the thread you linked to at the SpywareBlaster forum, you'd understand why this happens. It's really very simple, when one of the programs removes an outdated entry it will cause the other to see that entry as needing to be reinstalled.

If it was as simple as you portray it to be, then there wouldn't be so much confusion over it, now would there be? Maybe you're just being a "Bit" impatient with folks, Bitman. We can't all have the great grasp of program functionality that you obviously have.

What needs to happen is that you need to understand the programs you are using, what they are doing and thus why this situation can occur.

I can think of something else that needs to happen. You could back off with your intolerant replies. Clearly you are annoyed with people here asking questions. Is that really a good thing for a Spybot Advisor Team member?

It can't be fixed, that's the entire point which you're obviously unable to understand.

Quite a way with words there, Bitman. Are you sure you like helping others?

This is so obviously pointless it's amazing that you can't see it.

Again, the topic is not as clear as you'd like to think, hence the on-going questions. When I'm explaining something to someone and they aren't getting it, I try a different explanation. You, on the other hand, resort to ridicule and sarcasm.

You would do folks a favor if you refrained from answering their questions when you are feeling so stressed.

[bitman]

If it was as simple as you portray it to be, then there wouldn't be so much confusion over it, now would there be? Maybe you're just being a "Bit" impatient with folks, Bitman. We can't all have the great grasp of program functionality that you obviously have.

Thanks for making my point, very few can fully understand the security programs they use. In fact, a large number shouldn't be attempting to use the complex combinations of programs they've created. This is a simple fact of the state of the art in computer technology and security as it exists today.

You're right that these programs need to become much more simple to manage, but until they do, for some the best solution is to simply walk away. This isn't putting anyone down, since if you can't understand your combination of programs or more importantly the fundamental basics of how each program protects you, it's best not to use that program.

I know many people who aren't suited to using Spybot Search & Destroy, since it's really a tool for more technically minded individuals. I've never attempted to use it with certain members of my family, since I know they'd simply become confused and end up making the wrong decision, primariliy because they have absolutely no interest in computers themselves. They just want the computer to work and assume it will protect them, so that's how I've chosen the protection, it just works.

There are many degrees of technical interest and ability between the extremes of "don't care" and "techno-geek". However, it's often very easy to tell those who have the aptitude, since they must inherently have the interest. In skilled hands, Spybot Search and Destroy can even be automated for the use of less knowledgable and interested individuals, but at least the person configuring it must be somewhat technically adept and have that deeper interest.

This is the point I'm making, albiet in a relatively short manner. You're correct that I tire of watching people fumble around with the wrong protection, because I know how dangerous and foolish that really is. No, it isn't necessarily that person's fault, but when I recognize that fact, I don't do them any favors by letting them continue down that road. They can either take the time to really underestand what they're working with or move to something that requires less technical background to operate.

It is that simple, it must be or it is guaranteed to fail.

In this particular case the situation is clear, the problem is confusion about the relationship between two programs from two different sources. The only way to remove that confusion would be for Spybot S&D and Javacool to share the exact same database of protections with exactly the same update cycle. Since this is virtually impossible without one or the other ending operations, it can logically never be solved until that happens, so it's nearly certain it won't be solved within the programs themselves.

This leaves it to the user to resolve the issue with their own understanding. Barring that, the only real solution is to stop using one or the other program for these particular protections. It is that simple and obvious.

Bitman

[md usa spybot fan]

SpywareBlaster's 2009-02-25 update resolved the problem by eliminating the restricted zone entry being placed on xtrocash.host.sk. See:

• http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...85#post1412585