No immunization updates lately? [Merged topics]

A

antdude

New member
Alpha Testers
Hello.

Is it me or did SpyBot S&D's immunizations not get any recent updates for the last few weeks since 2/29/2012 (always check and update on Wednesdays' mornings)? I noticed this on multiple Windows and computers.

Thank you in advance. :)
 
antdude said:
Hello.

Is it me or did SpyBot S&D's immunizations not get any recent updates for the last few weeks since 2/29/2012 (always check and update on Wednesdays' mornings)? I noticed this on multiple Windows and computers.

Thank you in advance. :)
Click to expand...

Dude-i have seen the exact same thing. It is not just you. I was beginning to think it was just me.
 
DrDemento said:
Dude-i have seen the exact same thing. It is not just you. I was beginning to think it was just me.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming. Yeah, I wonder why the lack of recent updates in immunizations. I get the other weekly updates though.
 
a few

No biggie (depends on your browsers, I believe), 3-7 and 3-14 had some entries for opera items (content, if I recall correctly) in Immunization section.
 
ME_2& said:
No biggie (depends on your browsers, I believe), 3-7 and 3-14 had some entries for opera items (content, if I recall correctly) in Immunization section.
Click to expand...
I thought immunization did it for all supported web browsers (e.g., Firefox and IE) and hosts. None of them needed new updates for the last three weeks, including today's.
 
New Definitions

I just download new definitions and notice that there were no UNprotected entries. I believe this is the second time that there were no UNprotected entries.
Is that correct? No UNprotected entries this time and the previous time?
(IE8 / WinXP)
 
Last edited:
Two new updates but still no unprotected items?

In the last two weeks on each Wednesday I have uploaded an update but on each occasion when applying immunisation it shows there to be no unprotected items before the immunisation.

On every other occasion, I think that a new update has shown there to be unprotected items which are then protected after the application of the passive immunisation.

Is this normal or should fresh downloads always reveal that some items are unprotected prior to the immunisation?

Thanks

honestjock
 
Hi It looks like you are finding the same thing as I have just posted about as well.

I hope the reply is that this is normal but it would be nice to know why this is happening

On each occasion I have run the "search and destroy" and it has come up with "no problems - congratulations" so hopefully everything is fine

honestjock
 
I wonder if immunizations are going to be dropped completely. There used to be updates, including deletions and additions to the hosts file. The immunizations are probably the most valuable part of SpyBot Search & Destroy.
 
Hello,

You need not be concerned.
Immunization will not be dropped, we will continue updating immunization.

However, lately there has been a change on how malware handles it's 'servers', many domains hosting malware exist only for a short time and those who exist longer are mostly hijacked websites.
Protection against malicious downloads from legit websites is handled our IE browser helper object in Spybot S&D 1.6.2.
Immunization mostly blocks the whole domain which is usually not wanted when a legit domain only has a couple malicious files for download (IE Helper will block these downloads).
 
The entries in hosts file protect Firefox, Opera and other browsers, so the loss of immunizations there leaves those browsers unprotected from such sites.
 
I think we also need to improve the labels of updates here. The update currently labelled "Immunization" is just part of what is used during immunization and effects only browser plugin immunization.

Domains and specific URLs are within the update labelled "Supplemental".

This split happened because these databases are used in multiple parts of Spybot, not just the immunization.
 
Gopher John said:
The entries in hosts file protect Firefox, Opera and other browsers, so the loss of immunizations there leaves those browsers unprotected from such sites.
Click to expand...

This is correct, however it is unwise to block a school or hospital website just because a malware was successful in placing one or two exe files in a subdirectory so it can be downloaded when triggered. Usually you will not stumble on such files when you visit those websites.
Malware however often use the Internet Explorer (even if it is not the default browser) to access such downloads.

So this is a minor disadvantage for other browsers than the IE until such a feature is globally available.

@mark5019
Spybot S&D does also protect Firefox, however Spybot S&D has one more feature for the IE.
 
I personally go here to get the update file(s) manually: http://www.safer-networking.org/updates/files/spybotsd_includes.exe

When I tried the integrated updater in the first Beta, it never actually found updates, so I've moved to that...anyway an excellent (and better-updated) supplement to Spybot's permissions.sqlite based protection for Firefox is in an Adblock Plus subscription called "Malware Domains" (also available for Chrome and Safari).
 
I've been using Malware Domains subscriptions along with the EasyList and EasyPrivacy for quite some time in Firefox with AdBlock Plus. However, that doesn't negate the need for the hosts immunizations to be added. Better be running a really good antivirus that just might catch a zero-day threat.

Build a better defense, and along comes a better weapon. It's an arms race that the defenders will always be behind the curve on. Hardening the OS is the best answer to that, but that would make a computer much less of a plug-n-play toy to most users. They just want it to be very easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top