Spybot/Spywareblaster conflict CasaleMedia

[ky331]

you wrote: "I know more about how the Spybot Team operates and tend to trust their list more anyway". --- there's nothing like having "inside information"

you also wrote: "I believe this issue is really insignificant". Agreed. But most users don't want to have to choose (nor do most have sufficient knowledge to properly choose) between these programs. Each has its advocates. And since, with few/minor exceptions such as the one we're discussing here, they can "peacefully" coexist together, I think many people will continue to combine both, on the basis that doing so will "maximize" their (passive) IE protection. [of course, this reasoning does not apply to IE8, which has an issue with "large" collections of restricted sites.]

[bitman]

I actually have virtually no "inside information", I simply have seen more discussion here about how the Spybot Team makes decisions than I have about SpywareBlaster, though again I don't spend time at the Javacool forums, if they even exist. I also feel that Spybot provides a broader range of protection options in one package, so why mix and match many specialized applications when I can simply avoid these issues by combining Spybot S&D with a good basic antivirus (Avast! in my case) to provide everything I need?

I am less forgiving. I believe if an issue such as this makes a user uncomfortable and they really don't understand the issues behind such a difference, especially if they don't want to, then they should simply get rid of one (or possibly even both) of the programs.

As for Internet Explorer 8, I actually dropped Immunization completely on my systems with IE 7 and Windows Defender, since together these are relatively effective protection <EDIT> on a well maintained system. Since IE 8 improves this even more with SmartScreen filter, I see no reason to even consider using Immunization with these myself. Again, this is personal preference, but Spybot S&D's modular design makes this easy to support and tune as desired.

The reason Spybot S&D is still effective is due to this modularity and its usefullness as a tool when malware is already present. Most suites and other monolithic designs are fine while simply providing protection, but difficult to use or nearly ineffective once malware is present.

Bitman

[quabbin]

I too have this unusual conflict. It would be nice if Safer and Javacool could resolve this issue amicably since similar instances will probably appear in the future.

If you check the official SB forum on Wilders, you will see that Javacool has added a nice feature to 'find unprotected', which spares those who are curious from the tedium of having to scroll through the entire list searching for the needle in the haystack.

[bitman]

I too have this unusual conflict. It would be nice if Safer and Javacool could resolve this issue amicably since similar instances will probably appear in the future.

If you check the official SB forum on Wilders, you will see that Javacool has added a nice feature to 'find unprotected', which spares those who are curious from the tedium of having to scroll through the entire list searching for the needle in the haystack.

There's absolutely nothing unusual about it, it's quite simple if you'd just read the answers already given here.

Just run the SpywareBlaster program last and you'll never have this issue again. You're creating a problem where there is none. There will almost always be slight differences between these two programs, so if you can't handle it, just don't use one of them to 'Immunize', it's that simple.

Bitman

[Matt]

But you are right!

[quabbin]

There's absolutely nothing unusual about it, it's quite simple if you'd just read the answers already given here.

Just run the SpywareBlaster program last and you'll never have this issue again. You're creating a problem where there is none. There will almost always be slight differences between these two programs, so if you can't handle it, just don't use one of them to 'Immunize', it's that simple.

Bitman

Dude, you need to relax. That kind of attitude is a disservice to the forum and to yourself. And if you don't like my post, don't reply to it; to use your own words, "it's that simple". And I did read the answers.

I DO find it unusual because I have been running both Spybot and SpywareBlaster together for several years on two machines with innumerable updates to both, and this is the first occurrence of this problem that I have encountered. In my book it is accordingly 'unusual', and in fact unique in the literal sense. If you don't care for my characterization of my own experience, well I am just sooo sorry. It's that simple. Jerk.

[Matt]

and this is the first occurrence of this problem that I have encountered

But there were some identical problems between these two tools which you didn't notice, see for example here.

Bitman has already told you a method how you won't have any issue again. Follow it.

Perhaps this "problem" will be fixed by Javacool with the next update like he did a few weeks before too. Calm down please, we don't really have a problem between these two tools...

[ky331]

A simple statement (please, let's not make mountains out of mole hills):

SpywareBlaster database update 4/27/09

Observation: This update has removed casalemedia.com from the restricted sites zone, so there is no longer a conflict between SpywareBlaster and Spybot concerning this particular site.

[Carol]

Thanks!

[Matt]

A simple statement (please, let's not make mountains out of mole hills):

SpywareBlaster database update 4/27/09

Observation: This update has removed casalemedia.com from the restricted sites zone, so there is no longer a conflict between SpywareBlaster and Spybot concerning this particular site.

Like I said before...