AdAware Updates

[glee]

<pixturesk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8faea1b4-4f5d-4f9e-a0f1-0c9eb86cef8d@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 1:33 pm, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>> Only use one active background spyware scanner, no more. You can have any
>> number of on-demand scanners, but more than one background scanner can lead
>> to problems.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/Userwww.grystmill.com
>>
>> <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1e1db062-a479-403c-af94-7fc54d6e099b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 16, 6:55 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:eHigG4AWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> >> > glee wrote:
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> > real-time spyware scanner that nakes a good
>> >> >> companion to Spyware Blaster.....and it is also made by the same
>> >> >> folks:
>> >> >>http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html
>>
>> >> > Except that it's not had an update since Jan-04 IIRC.
>>
>> >> See:
>> >> Spywareguard Updates? -
>> >> dslreports.comhttp://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12410033?#12411725
>>
>> >> SpywareGuard Updates - Wilders Security
>> >> Forumshttp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=23839
>> >> --
>> >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User,
>> >> A+http://dts-l.net/http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>>
>> > While writing this, I am also trying Super AntiSpyware Free. The GUI
>> > is even cleaner than Spyware Terminator but the Simple or Basic Scan
>> > is taking more than twice as long as Spyware Terminator so this is an
>> > obvious negative. However, I notice that the results are more accurate
>> > than Spyware Terminator, which informs me that I have a particular
>> > critical object, which, in fact, is an essential file for running my
>> > specific Win98SE install. Along with Spyware Blaster, my main program,
>> > is there any problem keeping both Super AntiSpyware + Spyware
>> > Terminator on my computer or shall I just choose one, probably Super
>> > AntiSpyware for the above reasons. Thanks.
>
> So Gary, can I continue to use Spyware Blaster as my active scanner,
> then turn off the active scanner in Spyware Terminator, continue to
> install definition/program updates then using it to scan for malicious
> files, then removing them as with AdAware Free. Thanks.

SpywareBlaster is *NOT* an "active scanner" in any sense. It puts particular
kill-bits in the Registry to prevent known spyware from installing, and has the
ability to put particular web sites in the Restricted zone, and so forth, but it
does not run in the background or scan absolutely anything.

Gary was referring to not running the two active scanners together.....Spyware
Terminator and SuperAntiSpyware.

If you want an active scanner, then you would keep either SuperAntiSpyware's or
Spyware Terminator's background scanner loaded.....OR WinPatrol as mentioned by
Robear, which is very good alternative:
http://www.winpatrol.com/
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Brian A.]

<pixturesk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8faea1b4-4f5d-4f9e-a0f1-0c9eb86cef8d@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 1:33 pm, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>> Only use one active background spyware scanner, no more. You can have any
>> number of on-demand scanners, but more than one background scanner can lead
>> to problems.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/Userwww.grystmill.com
>>
>> <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1e1db062-a479-403c-af94-7fc54d6e099b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 16, 6:55 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:eHigG4AWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> >> > glee wrote:
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> > real-time spyware scanner that nakes a good
>> >> >> companion to Spyware Blaster.....and it is also made by the same
>> >> >> folks:
>> >> >>http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html
>>
>> >> > Except that it's not had an update since Jan-04 IIRC.
>>
>> >> See:
>> >> Spywareguard Updates? -
>> >> dslreports.comhttp://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12410033?#12411725
>>
>> >> SpywareGuard Updates - Wilders Security
>> >> Forumshttp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=23839
>> >> --
>> >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User,
>> >> A+http://dts-l.net/http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>>
>> > While writing this, I am also trying Super AntiSpyware Free. The GUI
>> > is even cleaner than Spyware Terminator but the Simple or Basic Scan
>> > is taking more than twice as long as Spyware Terminator so this is an
>> > obvious negative. However, I notice that the results are more accurate
>> > than Spyware Terminator, which informs me that I have a particular
>> > critical object, which, in fact, is an essential file for running my
>> > specific Win98SE install. Along with Spyware Blaster, my main program,
>> > is there any problem keeping both Super AntiSpyware + Spyware
>> > Terminator on my computer or shall I just choose one, probably Super
>> > AntiSpyware for the above reasons. Thanks.
>
> So Gary, can I continue to use Spyware Blaster as my active scanner,
> then turn off the active scanner in Spyware Terminator, continue to
> install definition/program updates then using it to scan for malicious
> files, then removing them as with AdAware Free. Thanks.

No, SpywareBlaster is not any type of active scanner, it does not run unless you
execute it to update the defs it places in CLSID in the registry. Once updated you
close it and the entries in the CLSID are what blocks adware/spyware from entering
your machine, not SpywareBlaster.

--
Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

[pixturesk@gmail.com]

On Jan 16, 8:28 pm, "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote:
> <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8faea1b4-4f5d-4f9e-a0f1-0c9eb86cef8d@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 1:33 pm, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
> >> Only use one active background spyware scanner, no more. You can have any
> >> number of on-demand scanners, but more than one background scanner can lead
> >> to problems.
>
> >> --
> >> Gary S. Terhune
> >> MS-MVP Shell/Userwww.grystmill.com
>
> >> <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1e1db062-a479-403c-af94-7fc54d6e099b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jan 16, 6:55 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:eHigG4AWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> >> >> > glee wrote:
> >> >> > <snip>
> >> >> > real-time spyware scanner that nakes a good
> >> >> >> companion to Spyware Blaster.....and it is also made by the same
> >> >> >> folks:
> >> >> >>http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html
>
> >> >> > Except that it's not had an update since Jan-04 IIRC.
>
> >> >> See:
> >> >> Spywareguard Updates? -
> >> >> dslreports.comhttp://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12410033?#12411725
>
> >> >> SpywareGuard Updates - Wilders Security
> >> >> Forumshttp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=23839
> >> >> --
> >> >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User,
> >> >> A+http://dts-l.net/http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
> >> > While writing this, I am also trying Super AntiSpyware Free. The GUI
> >> > is even cleaner than Spyware Terminator but the Simple or Basic Scan
> >> > is taking more than twice as long as Spyware Terminator so this is an
> >> > obvious negative. However, I notice that the results are more accurate
> >> > than Spyware Terminator, which informs me that I have a particular
> >> > critical object, which, in fact, is an essential file for running my
> >> > specific Win98SE install. Along with Spyware Blaster, my main program,
> >> > is there any problem keeping both Super AntiSpyware + Spyware
> >> > Terminator on my computer or shall I just choose one, probably Super
> >> > AntiSpyware for the above reasons. Thanks.
>
> > So Gary, can I continue to use Spyware Blaster as my active scanner,
> > then turn off the active scanner in Spyware Terminator, continue to
> > install definition/program updates then using it to scan for malicious
> > files, then removing them as with AdAware Free. Thanks.
>
> No, SpywareBlaster is not any type of active scanner, it does not run unless you
> execute it to update the defs it places in CLSID in the registry. Once updated you
> close it and the entries in the CLSID are what blocks adware/spyware from entering
> your machine, not SpywareBlaster.
>
> --
> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
> Conflicts start where information lacks.http://basconotw.mvps.org/
>
> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Thanks guys. So I will continue to run Spyware Terminator as my active
scanner (updating regularly) with the icon in the SysTray, as well as
continuing to update Spyware Blaster. I also use Avast + Sygate.

 

[toppler]

' A-Squared' gobbles all the others up,, is definately the flavour of the month,,, and Free.
(and best of all, Win98 is supported...!)

I still get the 'same' error msg as what I did six months ago from Adaware, when trying to download
the updates..... it always comes up with "Error" after retrieving 5% and it has been
discussed to death in the n/g's. A-Squared is the next step up from Adaware.
Still keep Spybot, and also SpyBlaster etc,,, and as always, make sure you update regularly, as
with all free programs.

(A-squared has the largest data-base of known attack proggies that I have seen so far)
http://www.emsisoft.com/en/

http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/download/

still, is all about choice I suppose.


<pixturesk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcc0274f-41de-4159-8c7a-2c1526be9eee@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 8:28 pm, "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote:
> > <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8faea1b4-4f5d-4f9e-a0f1-0c9eb86cef8d@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 16, 1:33 pm, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
> > >> Only use one active background spyware scanner, no more. You can have any
> > >> number of on-demand scanners, but more than one background scanner can lead
> > >> to problems.
> >
> > >> --
> > >> Gary S. Terhune
> > >> MS-MVP Shell/Userwww.grystmill.com
> >
> > >> <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >>news:1e1db062-a479-403c-af94-7fc54d6e099b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> > On Jan 16, 6:55 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> >> messagenews:eHigG4AWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >
> > >> >> > glee wrote:
> > >> >> > <snip>
> > >> >> > real-time spyware scanner that nakes a good
> > >> >> >> companion to Spyware Blaster.....and it is also made by the same
> > >> >> >> folks:
> > >> >> >>http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html
> >
> > >> >> > Except that it's not had an update since Jan-04 IIRC.
> >
> > >> >> See:
> > >> >> Spywareguard Updates? -
> > >> >> dslreports.comhttp://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12410033?#12411725
> >
> > >> >> SpywareGuard Updates - Wilders Security
> > >> >> Forumshttp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=23839
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User,
> > >> >> A+http://dts-l.net/http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
> >
> > >> > While writing this, I am also trying Super AntiSpyware Free. The GUI
> > >> > is even cleaner than Spyware Terminator but the Simple or Basic Scan
> > >> > is taking more than twice as long as Spyware Terminator so this is an
> > >> > obvious negative. However, I notice that the results are more accurate
> > >> > than Spyware Terminator, which informs me that I have a particular
> > >> > critical object, which, in fact, is an essential file for running my
> > >> > specific Win98SE install. Along with Spyware Blaster, my main program,
> > >> > is there any problem keeping both Super AntiSpyware + Spyware
> > >> > Terminator on my computer or shall I just choose one, probably Super
> > >> > AntiSpyware for the above reasons. Thanks.
> >
> > > So Gary, can I continue to use Spyware Blaster as my active scanner,
> > > then turn off the active scanner in Spyware Terminator, continue to
> > > install definition/program updates then using it to scan for malicious
> > > files, then removing them as with AdAware Free. Thanks.
> >
> > No, SpywareBlaster is not any type of active scanner, it does not run unless you
> > execute it to update the defs it places in CLSID in the registry. Once updated you
> > close it and the entries in the CLSID are what blocks adware/spyware from entering
> > your machine, not SpywareBlaster.
> >
> > --
> > Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
> > Conflicts start where information lacks.http://basconotw.mvps.org/
> >
> > Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
>
> Thanks guys. So I will continue to run Spyware Terminator as my active
> scanner (updating regularly) with the icon in the SysTray, as well as
> continuing to update Spyware Blaster. I also use Avast + Sygate.
>

 

[DaffyD®]

"Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
news:el%23iOs$VIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
> pixturesk@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 7:38 pm, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote:
> >> pixtur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> I am trying to update my AdAware 1.06r1 definitions on my Win98SE
> >>> computer ( using Avast, Sygate Personal Firewall) but for some
> >>> reason, for the first time, when I click on "Connect", I get a
> >>> message that no updates are available, this after 19 days without
> >>> an update. My last successful update was on Dec. 27/07. Is there
> >>> some problem I am
> >>> unaware of. How can I fix this? I am a non-techie so please make
> >>> your reply easy to follow. Thanks.
> >>
> >> Ad-aware SE Personal stopped updating in January. The replacement is
> >> Ad-aware 2007 Free but Windows 98 is no longer supported. You might
> >> want to consider Spybot S&D instead.
> >
> > I tried Spybot S+D, for some reason took forever to load, so I
> > uninstalled, then install Spyware Terminator, which removes necessary
> > files, goes too far!! so I uninstalled it. I have been using Spyware
> > Blaster for quite awhile. Is that enough, on its own, to replace
> > AdAware? Thanks
>
> I had the same problem in 1.5 and I gather from their forum so did a lot
of
> others. Not that I'm boosting Spybot S&D, but they've recently fixed it -
> the version I have installed now, 1.5.1.19, does not have this problem. It
> does take a long time to finish a scan compared to 1.4 but what I've read
at
> least is that it's because it's a lot more thorough.
>
> I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they don't
provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious nasties.
--
{ : [|]=( DaffyD®

If I knew where I was I'd be there now.

 

[Buffalo]

DaffyD® wrote:
>> I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>> don't
> provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
> nasties.

Then, what would you recommend?
I use SuperAntiSpyWare and SpyWareBlaster and I rarely even encounter any
spyware.
Perhaps, I should open up my firewall so that I could check to see if the
above programs really work.

 

[Roger Fink]

DaffyD® wrote:
> "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
> news:el%23iOs$VIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> pixturesk@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 7:38 pm, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote:
>>>> pixtur...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to update my AdAware 1.06r1 definitions on my Win98SE
>>>>> computer ( using Avast, Sygate Personal Firewall) but for some
>>>>> reason, for the first time, when I click on "Connect", I get a
>>>>> message that no updates are available, this after 19 days without
>>>>> an update. My last successful update was on Dec. 27/07. Is there
>>>>> some problem I am
>>>>> unaware of. How can I fix this? I am a non-techie so please make
>>>>> your reply easy to follow. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Ad-aware SE Personal stopped updating in January. The replacement
>>>> is Ad-aware 2007 Free but Windows 98 is no longer supported. You
>>>> might want to consider Spybot S&D instead.
>>>
>>> I tried Spybot S+D, for some reason took forever to load, so I
>>> uninstalled, then install Spyware Terminator, which removes
>>> necessary files, goes too far!! so I uninstalled it. I have been
>>> using Spyware Blaster for quite awhile. Is that enough, on its own,
>>> to replace AdAware? Thanks
>>
>> I had the same problem in 1.5 and I gather from their forum so did a
>> lot of others. Not that I'm boosting Spybot S&D, but they've
>> recently fixed it - the version I have installed now, 1.5.1.19, does
>> not have this problem. It does take a long time to finish a scan
>> compared to 1.4 but what I've read at least is that it's because
>> it's a lot more thorough.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>> don't
> provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
> nasties.

It's an adequate response for me. The threat isn't the same for everybody,
and the additional "housekeeping" people do varies from person to person.
Real time protection is a nice feature, but you trade that off against the o
verall performance and buginess of your machine.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Care to elaborate?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they don't
> provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious nasties.
> --
> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>
> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>

 

[DaffyD®]

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Care to elaborate?
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they don't
> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious nasties.
> > --
> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
> >
> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
> >
> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html

> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."


http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html

"Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of defense
against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
real-time protection."

I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it only
uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.

By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
--
{ : [|]=( DaffyD®

If I knew where I was I'd be there now.

 

[DaffyD®]

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:EsmdnTyy7On77QzanZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> DaffyD® wrote:
> >> I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
> >> don't
> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
> > nasties.
>
> Then, what would you recommend?
> I use SuperAntiSpyWare and SpyWareBlaster and I rarely even encounter any
> spyware.
> Perhaps, I should open up my firewall so that I could check to see if the
> above programs really work.
>
> I do use SpyWare Blaster myself and have never had any problems. However,
the only entity that has ever hijacked my home page has been Microsoft when
I repaired IE.

I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
> news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
> Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
>
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
>
> > "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
> Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
>
> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
>
> "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
> definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
> paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of defense
> against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
> real-time protection."

Also, do a search for spyware dectectors on about.com. Just about all of
them will report false positives or negatives.
>
> I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
only
> uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.

> There is a new version of Adaware , 2007, the Pro verion of which has
received good reviews. I plan to try it and will report back. This one
contains a rootkit detector which the free version lacks.

Also, check out Spyware Sweeper. It's the highest rated of these class of
programs.

> http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/anti-spyware-reviews/index.html

The review also advises the use of free programs. Our IT department at work
installed the free versions of Spybot S&D and Adaware. They also use the
McAfee firewall. Again from my research, I don't agree with their choices.
--
{ : [|]=( DaffyD®

If I knew where I was I'd be there now.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

OK, your complaint is that they don't provide "real time protection". Your
previous said "real protection", which isn't the same thing. No, they don't
provide real-time protection, but for static scanning, I'll take those two,
Spybot S&D and AdAware SE, over pretty much any other. Personally, I don't
like or use real-time spyware protection. I use the two above apps
periodically, along with Spyware Blaster, and in spite of my daughter's
tendencies to go where such crap is bountiful, my system stays clean. Yes, I
do use real-time AV, Avast to be specific. But it's been years since I got a
hit from any real-time AV. Hey, maybe it's just karma, but I just don't get
that crap the way I used to. Of course, the only time I've *ever* been
infected, really, was when I deliberately ran viruses to see what they were
doing.

And, yes, I've run a bunch of those newer anti-spyware apps and not a one
found anything worth speaking of, and since they seem to do nothing but add
a huge layer of crap, my response is, "No thanks." I use the three
above-named apps along with Avast (or whatever AV seemed best at the time--I
used ETrust for a long time.) Of course, I'm not the slightest bit
interested or worried in stupid, simple things like "tracking cookies" which
are mostly a problem for paranoids. Besides, I allow and refuse cookies on a
case by case basis, so that helps.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:Os$OEq7WIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Care to elaborate?
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>> > don't
>> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
>> > nasties.
>> > --
>> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>> >
>> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>> >
>> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
> news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
> Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
> http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
>
>> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
> Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
>
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
>
> "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
> definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
> paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of defense
> against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
> real-time protection."
>
> I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
> only
> uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
>
> By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
> --
> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>
> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>
>
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

While I have no opinion of McAfee firewall (their AV sucks, though), I would
suggest that your "research" lacks real-world truth. I've actually used a
bunch of the apps you're talking about, and have decided that real-time
spyware protection is useless, or at least not worth the overhead. Then
again, maybe I'm just not paranoid enough.

I also finally decided that AdAware SE, Spybot S&D and SpywareBlaster are
sufficient for my purposes. Hell, I wouldn't even use real-time AV if it
weren't for the high risks involved -- my machine might be destroyed in a
flash by a virus, not so with spyware. As for data theft, I actually pay
attention to what my system is doing, and I have years of data to suggest
that the apps I use are sufficient, not just on my system but on ALL the
systems for which I'm responsible (about a dozen full-time, but also lots of
others that I work on regularly, with NO infestations worth worrying about
once I've cleaned them up with the two above apps and then added
SpywareBlaster, which I update monthly.) Even my worst-behaved customers get
nothing worse than a tracking cookie or two once I've cleaned up the
systems, added SpywareBlaster, and trained the user to keep them up to date
and run the scanners monthly, not that they ever find anything worth
worrying about.

And, yes, I periodically (about every year) run a bunch of the other apps,
just to make sure nothing has slipped by, and I never find anything worth
worrying about. Not just on my machines, but on all the ones I'm responsible
for.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecz6v47WIHA.4532@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:EsmdnTyy7On77QzanZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> DaffyD® wrote:
>> >> I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>> >> don't
>> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
>> > nasties.
>>
>> Then, what would you recommend?
>> I use SuperAntiSpyWare and SpyWareBlaster and I rarely even encounter any
>> spyware.
>> Perhaps, I should open up my firewall so that I could check to see if the
>> above programs really work.
>>
>> I do use SpyWare Blaster myself and have never had any problems.
>> However,
> the only entity that has ever hijacked my home page has been Microsoft
> when
> I repaired IE.
>
> I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
>> news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
>> Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
>>
> http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
>>
>> > "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
>> Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
>>
>> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
>>
>> "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
>> definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
>> paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of
>> defense
>> against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
>> real-time protection."
>
> Also, do a search for spyware dectectors on about.com. Just about all of
> them will report false positives or negatives.
>>
>> I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
> only
>> uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
>
>> There is a new version of Adaware , 2007, the Pro verion of which has
> received good reviews. I plan to try it and will report back. This one
> contains a rootkit detector which the free version lacks.
>
> Also, check out Spyware Sweeper. It's the highest rated of these class of
> programs.
>
>> http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/anti-spyware-reviews/index.html
>
> The review also advises the use of free programs. Our IT department at
> work
> installed the free versions of Spybot S&D and Adaware. They also use the
> McAfee firewall. Again from my research, I don't agree with their
> choices.
> --
> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>
> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>

 

[bobster]

Gary,
I currently use SpywareBlaster, AdAware and WinPatrol. It looks like
AdAware is going away - at least the updates - for 98se.

I used SpyBot S&D for many years but the latest version doesn't seem to work
on my machine. I replaced it with WinPatrol , realizing that they are not
the same functionally. I also use ZA free and AVAST free.

Do you use/recommend using a host file in addition to the above? I also use
DNSKong and eDexter.

Am I sufficiently protected, or paranoid and over-protected?



"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23sY5TVIXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
OK, your complaint is that they don't provide "real time protection". Your
previous said "real protection", which isn't the same thing. No, they don't
provide real-time protection, but for static scanning, I'll take those two,
Spybot S&D and AdAware SE, over pretty much any other. Personally, I don't
like or use real-time spyware protection. I use the two above apps
periodically, along with Spyware Blaster, and in spite of my daughter's
tendencies to go where such crap is bountiful, my system stays clean. Yes, I
do use real-time AV, Avast to be specific. But it's been years since I got a
hit from any real-time AV. Hey, maybe it's just karma, but I just don't get
that crap the way I used to. Of course, the only time I've *ever* been
infected, really, was when I deliberately ran viruses to see what they were
doing.

And, yes, I've run a bunch of those newer anti-spyware apps and not a one
found anything worth speaking of, and since they seem to do nothing but add
a huge layer of crap, my response is, "No thanks." I use the three
above-named apps along with Avast (or whatever AV seemed best at the time--I
used ETrust for a long time.) Of course, I'm not the slightest bit
interested or worried in stupid, simple things like "tracking cookies" which
are mostly a problem for paranoids. Besides, I allow and refuse cookies on a
case by case basis, so that helps.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:Os$OEq7WIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Care to elaborate?
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>> > don't
>> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
>> > nasties.
>> > --
>> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>> >
>> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>> >
>> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
> news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
> Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
>
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
>
>> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
> Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
>
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
>
> "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
> definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
> paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of defense
> against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
> real-time protection."
>
> I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
> only
> uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
>
> By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
> --
> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>
> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>
>
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

As I said, I have tried various real-time scanners, and in the end, I don't
think they're worth the overhead. But that's me.

As for overkill, at first glance you have a layer or two more than you need.
Much more than I would want, but again, it's a personal choice. If it all
works for you and doesn't get in the way, doesn't slow things down or cause
failures of programming from web sites that you would rather worked...

Look, the second thing I do with a hinky system after scanning for malware
is to uninstall, disable, whatever, all malware scanners. Get where I'm
going with this?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:OqS0JvLXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Gary,
> I currently use SpywareBlaster, AdAware and WinPatrol. It looks like
> AdAware is going away - at least the updates - for 98se.
>
> I used SpyBot S&D for many years but the latest version doesn't seem to
> work
> on my machine. I replaced it with WinPatrol , realizing that they are not
> the same functionally. I also use ZA free and AVAST free.
>
> Do you use/recommend using a host file in addition to the above? I also
> use
> DNSKong and eDexter.
>
> Am I sufficiently protected, or paranoid and over-protected?
>
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23sY5TVIXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> OK, your complaint is that they don't provide "real time protection". Your
> previous said "real protection", which isn't the same thing. No, they
> don't
> provide real-time protection, but for static scanning, I'll take those
> two,
> Spybot S&D and AdAware SE, over pretty much any other. Personally, I don't
> like or use real-time spyware protection. I use the two above apps
> periodically, along with Spyware Blaster, and in spite of my daughter's
> tendencies to go where such crap is bountiful, my system stays clean. Yes,
> I
> do use real-time AV, Avast to be specific. But it's been years since I got
> a
> hit from any real-time AV. Hey, maybe it's just karma, but I just don't
> get
> that crap the way I used to. Of course, the only time I've *ever* been
> infected, really, was when I deliberately ran viruses to see what they
> were
> doing.
>
> And, yes, I've run a bunch of those newer anti-spyware apps and not a one
> found anything worth speaking of, and since they seem to do nothing but
> add
> a huge layer of crap, my response is, "No thanks." I use the three
> above-named apps along with Avast (or whatever AV seemed best at the
> time--I
> used ETrust for a long time.) Of course, I'm not the slightest bit
> interested or worried in stupid, simple things like "tracking cookies"
> which
> are mostly a problem for paranoids. Besides, I allow and refuse cookies on
> a
> case by case basis, so that helps.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Os$OEq7WIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>
>>> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>>> > don't
>>> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
>>> > nasties.
>>> > --
>>> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>>> >
>>> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>>> >
>>> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
>> news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
>> Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
>>
> http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
>>
>>> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
>> Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
>>
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
>>
>> "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
>> definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
>> paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of
>> defense
>> against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
>> real-time protection."
>>
>> I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
>> only
>> uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
>>
>> By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
>> --
>> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>>
>> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[DaffyD®]

By "real protection" I meant actual protection, real time or not. The
spyware programs have never helped me. I was going to try Adaware Pro 7,
but it's incompatible with Win 98SE. So, I'll keep Spyware Blaster only on
my computer, certainally doesn't hurt anything and probably gives some layer
of real-time protection.
--
{ : [|]=( DaffyD®

If I knew where I was I'd be there now.



"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23sY5TVIXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> OK, your complaint is that they don't provide "real time protection". Your
> previous said "real protection", which isn't the same thing. No, they
don't
> provide real-time protection, but for static scanning, I'll take those
two,
> Spybot S&D and AdAware SE, over pretty much any other. Personally, I don't
> like or use real-time spyware protection. I use the two above apps
> periodically, along with Spyware Blaster, and in spite of my daughter's
> tendencies to go where such crap is bountiful, my system stays clean. Yes,
I
> do use real-time AV, Avast to be specific. But it's been years since I got
a
> hit from any real-time AV. Hey, maybe it's just karma, but I just don't
get
> that crap the way I used to. Of course, the only time I've *ever* been
> infected, really, was when I deliberately ran viruses to see what they
were
> doing.
>
> And, yes, I've run a bunch of those newer anti-spyware apps and not a one
> found anything worth speaking of, and since they seem to do nothing but
add
> a huge layer of crap, my response is, "No thanks." I use the three
> above-named apps along with Avast (or whatever AV seemed best at the
time--I
> used ETrust for a long time.) Of course, I'm not the slightest bit
> interested or worried in stupid, simple things like "tracking cookies"
which
> are mostly a problem for paranoids. Besides, I allow and refuse cookies on
a
> case by case basis, so that helps.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Os$OEq7WIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> > news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Care to elaborate?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gary S. Terhune
> >> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >> www.grystmill.com
> >>
> >> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
> >> > don't
> >> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
> >> > nasties.
> >> > --
> >> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
> >> >
> >> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
> >> >
> >> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
> > news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
> > Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
> >
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
> >
> >> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
> > Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
> >
> >
> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
> >
> > "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
> > definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
> > paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of
defense
> > against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
> > real-time protection."
> >
> > I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
> > only
> > uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
> >
> > By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
> > --
> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
> >
> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

 

[DaffyD®]

I do use a Hosts file--available for free at

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

It definitely screens out most ads and banners and I believe it also is
another layer of protection against drive by malware.
--
{ : [|]=( DaffyD®

If I knew where I was I'd be there now.

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:OqS0JvLXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Gary,
> I currently use SpywareBlaster, AdAware and WinPatrol. It looks like
> AdAware is going away - at least the updates - for 98se.
>
> I used SpyBot S&D for many years but the latest version doesn't seem to
work
> on my machine. I replaced it with WinPatrol , realizing that they are not
> the same functionally. I also use ZA free and AVAST free.
>
> Do you use/recommend using a host file in addition to the above? I also
use
> DNSKong and eDexter.
>
> Am I sufficiently protected, or paranoid and over-protected?
>
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23sY5TVIXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> OK, your complaint is that they don't provide "real time protection". Your
> previous said "real protection", which isn't the same thing. No, they
don't
> provide real-time protection, but for static scanning, I'll take those
two,
> Spybot S&D and AdAware SE, over pretty much any other. Personally, I don't
> like or use real-time spyware protection. I use the two above apps
> periodically, along with Spyware Blaster, and in spite of my daughter's
> tendencies to go where such crap is bountiful, my system stays clean. Yes,
I
> do use real-time AV, Avast to be specific. But it's been years since I got
a
> hit from any real-time AV. Hey, maybe it's just karma, but I just don't
get
> that crap the way I used to. Of course, the only time I've *ever* been
> infected, really, was when I deliberately ran viruses to see what they
were
> doing.
>
> And, yes, I've run a bunch of those newer anti-spyware apps and not a one
> found anything worth speaking of, and since they seem to do nothing but
add
> a huge layer of crap, my response is, "No thanks." I use the three
> above-named apps along with Avast (or whatever AV seemed best at the
time--I
> used ETrust for a long time.) Of course, I'm not the slightest bit
> interested or worried in stupid, simple things like "tracking cookies"
which
> are mostly a problem for paranoids. Besides, I allow and refuse cookies on
a
> case by case basis, so that helps.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Os$OEq7WIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> > news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Care to elaborate?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gary S. Terhune
> >> MS-MVP Shell/User
> >> www.grystmill.com
> >>
> >> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
> >> > don't
> >> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
> >> > nasties.
> >> > --
> >> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
> >> >
> >> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
> >> >
> >> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
> > news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
> > Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
> >
>
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
> >
> >> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists" story,
> > Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
> >
> >
> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
> >
> > "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
> > definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to the
> > paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of
defense
> > against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
> > real-time protection."
> >
> > I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
> > only
> > uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
> >
> > By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
> > --
> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
> >
> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

IME, AdAware and Spybot BOTH, ALWAYS, find real problems in previously
unprotected machines. In addition, while I've often found nasties with these
apps that other apps missed, the opposite isn't true. I've yet to find
anything worth worrying about using any other anti-spyware app after
cleaning up with these two. Getting rid of any real problems found by these
apps has ALWAYS resulted in better functioning and/or dismissal of errors
and, of course, issues like data theft. I call that "real protection".

In my book, periodic scans with both apps are insensible, just in case
real-time protection or passive blocking apps fail top do the job.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:eNSVFS8XIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> By "real protection" I meant actual protection, real time or not. The
> spyware programs have never helped me. I was going to try Adaware Pro 7,
> but it's incompatible with Win 98SE. So, I'll keep Spyware Blaster only
> on
> my computer, certainally doesn't hurt anything and probably gives some
> layer
> of real-time protection.
> --
> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>
> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23sY5TVIXIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> OK, your complaint is that they don't provide "real time protection".
>> Your
>> previous said "real protection", which isn't the same thing. No, they
> don't
>> provide real-time protection, but for static scanning, I'll take those
> two,
>> Spybot S&D and AdAware SE, over pretty much any other. Personally, I
>> don't
>> like or use real-time spyware protection. I use the two above apps
>> periodically, along with Spyware Blaster, and in spite of my daughter's
>> tendencies to go where such crap is bountiful, my system stays clean.
>> Yes,
> I
>> do use real-time AV, Avast to be specific. But it's been years since I
>> got
> a
>> hit from any real-time AV. Hey, maybe it's just karma, but I just don't
> get
>> that crap the way I used to. Of course, the only time I've *ever* been
>> infected, really, was when I deliberately ran viruses to see what they
> were
>> doing.
>>
>> And, yes, I've run a bunch of those newer anti-spyware apps and not a one
>> found anything worth speaking of, and since they seem to do nothing but
> add
>> a huge layer of crap, my response is, "No thanks." I use the three
>> above-named apps along with Avast (or whatever AV seemed best at the
> time--I
>> used ETrust for a long time.) Of course, I'm not the slightest bit
>> interested or worried in stupid, simple things like "tracking cookies"
> which
>> are mostly a problem for paranoids. Besides, I allow and refuse cookies
>> on
> a
>> case by case basis, so that helps.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Os$OEq7WIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> > news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> Care to elaborate?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gary S. Terhune
>> >> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> >> www.grystmill.com
>> >>
>> >> "DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:uyvYmqjWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> >> > I'm not a fan of either AdAware or Spybot S&D because I think they
>> >> > don't
>> >> > provide any real protection against spyware and other malicious
>> >> > nasties.
>> >> > --
>> >> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>> >> >
>> >> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've done a lot of research on antivirus discussion groups,
>> > news.grc.security software. I've also used both programs and run scams.
>> > Also, I've looked at spyware comparision charts and articles.
>> >
> http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,22262-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html
>> >
>> >> "In tests performed by AV-Test.org for the "Spyware Specialists"
>> >> story,
>> > Spybot performed worst of the five products tested."
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126883/article.html
>> >
>> > "Ad-Aware SE Personal, which lacks even e-mail tech support, is by
>> > definition a crippled program since Lavasoft wants you to upgrade to
>> > the
>> > paid product. As a result, we recommend it as good second layer of
> defense
>> > against adware and spyware--but your primary application should have
>> > real-time protection."
>> >
>> > I've also used the paid version in the past. Maybe I was lucky, but it
>> > only
>> > uncovered cookies that I can delete myself for free.
>> >
>> > By the way, I do use Spyware Blaster.
>> > --
>> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>> >
>> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

 

[paul]

On Jan 17, 5:29 pm, "pixtur...@gmail.com" <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:28 pm, "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8faea1b4-4f5d-4f9e-a0f1-0c9eb86cef8d@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 16, 1:33 pm, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
> > >> Only use one active backgroundspywarescanner, no more. You can have any
> > >> number of on-demand scanners, but more than one background scanner can lead
> > >> to problems.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Gary S. Terhune
> > >> MS-MVP Shell/Userwww.grystmill.com
>
> > >> <pixtur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1e1db062-a479-403c-af94-7fc54d6e099b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On Jan 16, 6:55 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> >> messagenews:eHigG4AWIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> > >> >> > glee wrote:
> > >> >> > <snip>
> > >> >> > real-timespywarescanner that nakes a good
> > >> >> >> companion toSpywareBlaster.....and it is also made by the same
> > >> >> >> folks:
> > >> >> >>http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html
>
> > >> >> > Except that it's not had an update since Jan-04 IIRC.
>
> > >> >> See:
> > >> >> Spywareguard Updates? -
> > >> >> dslreports.comhttp://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12410033?#12411725
>
> > >> >> SpywareGuard Updates - Wilders Security
> > >> >> Forumshttp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=23839
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User,
> > >> >> A+http://dts-l.net/http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
> > >> > While writing this, I am also trying Super AntiSpyware Free. The GUI
> > >> > is even cleaner thanSpywareTerminator but the Simple or Basic Scan
> > >> > is taking more than twice as long asSpywareTerminator so this is an
> > >> > obvious negative. However, I notice that the results are more accurate
> > >> > thanSpywareTerminator, which informs me that I have a particular
> > >> > critical object, which, in fact, is an essential file for running my
> > >> > specific Win98SE install. Along withSpywareBlaster, my main program,
> > >> > is there any problem keeping both Super AntiSpyware +Spyware
> > >> > Terminator on my computer or shall I just choose one, probably Super
> > >> > AntiSpyware for the above reasons. Thanks.
>
> > > So Gary, can I continue to useSpywareBlaster as my active scanner,
> > > then turn off the active scanner inSpywareTerminator, continue to
> > > install definition/program updates then using it to scan for malicious
> > > files, then removing them as with AdAware Free. Thanks.
>
> > No, SpywareBlaster is not any type of active scanner, it does not run unless you
> > execute it to update the defs it places in CLSID in the registry. Once updated you
> > close it and the entries in the CLSID are what blocks adware/spywarefrom entering
> > your machine, not SpywareBlaster.
>
> > --
> > Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
> > Conflicts start where information lacks.http://basconotw.mvps.org/
>
> > Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
>
> Thanks guys. So I will continue to runSpywareTerminator as my active
> scanner (updating regularly) with the icon in the SysTray, as well as
> continuing to updateSpywareBlaster. I also use Avast + Sygate.

1. Download and run firefox to protect your from future spyware
attacks and pop ups which are coming in through internet explorer
(Trojan downloaders, win32 ) .Then update your windows through firefox
http://securitynewsfromthenet.blogspot.com/2007/05/spyware-fighter-essentials.html

2. Run the vundo and combo fix http://securitynewsfromthenet.blogspot.com/2007/05/vundofix-and-combo-fix.html

3. Run the anti spyware remove programs spybot
http://securitynewsfromthenet.blogspot.com/2007/03/spybot-search-and-destroy-spyware-and.html
and superantispyware http://securitynewsfromthenet.blogspot.com/2007/04/superantispyware-home-edition-free.html
to get rid of the nasties

4. Run a free online virus scan to be sure you computer is virus and
spyware free. http://securitynewsfromthenet.blogspot.com/2007/03/online-virus-scan.html
download and run McAfee Avert Stinger Stinger is a stand-alone utility
used to detect and remove specific viruses http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/stinger.htm

5. Get the clean up tools to clean up the spyware from your temp
folder (the place they are stored when downloaded by internet
explorer) http://securitynewsfromthenet.blogspot.com/2007/03/clean-up-tools-to-prevent-people-from.html

WHAT DO YOU DO IF EVERYTHING FAILS TO REMOVE THE SPYWARE or You are
not sure your computer is spyware and virus free? If everything fails
to get the nasty spyware removed let the experts take a look at whats
happening on your computer.Visit the HijackThis Logs and Analysis
forum. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/forum22.html

Wiping your computer clean is NOT the solution.
Asking /paying someone else to fix the problem is NOT the solution .
TAKE A STAND NOW! IT's YOUR COMPUTER !!

 

[arielbio@hotmail.com]

"pixturesk@gmail.com" wrote:

> I am trying to update my AdAware 1.06r1 definitions on my Win98SE
> computer ( using Avast, Sygate Personal Firewall) but for some reason,
> for the first time, when I click on "Connect", I get a message that no
> updates are available, this after 19 days without an update. My last
> successful update was on Dec. 27/07. Is there some problem I am
> unaware of. How can I fix this? I am a non-techie so please make your
> reply easy to follow. Thanks.
>

 

[thanatoid]

"pixturesk@gmail.com" <pixturesk@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3106bc9d-c746-4a20-9e97-245533cd4899@h11g2000prf.googlegr
oups.com:

> I am trying to update my AdAware 1.06r1 definitions on my
> Win98SE computer ( using Avast, Sygate Personal Firewall)
> but for some reason, for the first time, when I click on
> "Connect", I get a message that no updates are available,
> this after 19 days without an update. My last successful
> update was on Dec. 27/07. Is there some problem I am
> unaware of. How can I fix this? I am a non-techie so please
> make your reply easy to follow. Thanks.

I realize this isn't much of a reply, but IMO AdAware was great
8 years ago. Then it started getting bloated and complicated,
there were too many different sites all claiming to be the
original, updates made no sense whatsoever, so I switched to
Spybot Search and Destroy.

--
"As you know, it is considered bad form to discuss the latest
news with persons from the beyond."
Karel Capek