XTROcash (2) unchecked in spywareblaster due to SpyBot?

R

reygeko

New member
With the last update of SpyBot, a restricted site of spywareblaster has been unchecked.

The specific site is:

XTROcash (2) -----> xtrocash.host.sk

I've read other posts where this has happened before.

Why does this happen?

Thanks.
 
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 It's really very simple, when one of the programs removes an outdated entry it will cause the other to see that entry as needing to be reinstalled.

Though it might be nice if both programs attempted to stay in sync, this extra effort really isn't worth the trouble. Since the update cycles of the two programs will never be in perfect sync, it wouldn't really matter if they tried to remove entries at the same time, because this problem would still occur for some period of time.

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. If you can't, then one of the posts in the other forum is correct and you should simply remove one or the other program. Better yet, simply remove the Immunization done by Spybot Search and Destroy and only use SpywareBlaster for that purpose going forward. This way you get the antispyware protection of Spybot S&D and the larger set of Restricted Sites provided by SpywareBlaster combined.

Personally, what I've always done is to update Spybot S&D first, then update SpywareBlaster. This way I get the combined lists of both and since SpywareBlaster is usually behind, a few extra entries that might not be worth having. Out of several thousand entries, that's not really a big deal. If I thought it was I'd remove SpywareBlaster since they're usually behind, but then I'd loose the hundreds of additional entries they provide, so that's the trade-off.

Bitman
 
Having a bad day bitman? I think my thread is not to agressive to react that way...

It has a title which requests help and with a post giving the information and making a question.

I agreed with Smirnoff that the developers should help each other. Why? Well, because a conflict does exist.

Personally, before I created this topic, I had already read the link to spywareblaster's forum that Smirnoff suggested. And not once, but many times. Why? Because this conflict is not new.

Why I created this thread? Because I want this problem to get fixed in a proper way. Not to ignore it.
 
Hi,

you are protected against dangerous downloads from
xtrocash.host.sk
Click to expand...
Either from Spybot or from SpywareBlaster.

Javacool already did this problem on his "to do list" for the next update or release. So relax. ;)

Best regards,
-Matt-
 
Last edited:
reygeko said:
Having a bad day bitman? I think my thread is not to agressive to react that way...

It has a title which requests help and with a post giving the information and making a question.

I agreed with Smirnoff that the developers should help each other. Why? Well, because a conflict does exist.

Personally, before I created this topic, I had already read the link to spywareblaster's forum that Smirnoff suggested. And not once, but many times. Why? Because this conflict is not new.

Why I created this thread? Because I want this problem to get fixed in a proper way. Not to ignore it.
Click to expand...

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

Think about it for just a small moment. What if every security application tried to resolve all such issues with every other security application every time they released a new update? They'd have to spend an entire week verifying everything they intend to update before they release, basically removing the value of timliness of the update completely.

This is so obviously pointless it's amazing that you can't see it. This 'conflict' is nothing but a single entry removed by one, but not the other. Who cares? Just ignore it and decide if you want Spybot S&D or SpywareBlaster to be 'in charge' and run their update last. This will result in the same thing you want without any of the wasted effort on the part of either organization.

Bitman
 
For me, it's only one site (XTROCash) that's "unimmunized". It seems that even though you attempt you Immunize all for SpywareBlaster, it'll still show as partially protected if you should open Spybot's Immunzation feature.

My conclusion: get over it. [Some] People are getting paranoid because it is merely one site. What are the chances of you falling into that site (not very big at all) and getting infected (very little)? bitman certainly has a point because it'll be both a waste of time and a consummation of effort to "sync" with one another (the updates).
 
Last edited:
drragostea said:
For me, it's only one site (XTROCash) that's "unimmunized". It seems that even though you attempt you Immunize all for SpywareBlaster, it'll still show as partially protected if you should open Spybot's Immunzation feature.
Click to expand...

The reason this happens when you open the Immunize screen is to avoid 'garbage collection' by the Spybot S&D Immunization. If the only way to remove outdated items were to Undo Immunization using the previous set of updates before the new updates were downloaded, most everyone would eventually have dozens of these 'ophan' entries contained in their registry.

To avoid this issue, a major version or two ago this automatic removal of outdated entries was added to the initial Immunize scan. This avoids the problem without having to teach everyone to Undo/Immunize for every new update.

I don't know how JavaCool deals with this issue in SpywareBlaster.

Bitman
 
bitman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

bitman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

bitman said:
It can't be fixed, that's the entire point which you're obviously unable to understand.
Click to expand...
Quite a way with words there, Bitman. Are you sure you like helping others?

bitman said:
This is so obviously pointless it's amazing that you can't see it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ChalupaPatrol said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top