Are there other immunizing applications like Spybot out there? I like the idea of having a blacklist of sites that are blocked altogether rather than just the viruses and spyware being filtered out. I just don't know if Spybot's immunization database is always fresh.
Immunizing applications like Spybot?
- Thread starter fwacct4
- Start date
Yes and check their forum http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23 for things to look out for, if any exist. Not long ago IE8 had problems with those long lists of killbits but should be solved now.
Dont think it actually block sites, or not that many. If you want that try Hostsman http://www.abelhadigital.com/ with hpHosts file http://hosts-file.net/ Beta-version allow you to use a partial=daily updated hpHosts file. Almost "real-time" protection. Has white lists, remove duplicates so in theory you can use 10 hostsfiles, makes it easy to add domain as well. Also build-in mini-server to respond with "Blocked by ..." or a gif. Even logging. Works very well, old annoyances with hosts files are pretty much gone. With good sources it is easy to find sites which output give AV problems if not sites themself. Scams in all colors, bad business ethics or other unwanted features. So must be good idea if you happen to go such places and click away. Or a good idea because you like the thought that it is not possible to try
If you only want to remove ads use Peter Lowe´s adserver list, also selectable in Hostsman. Size difference from those in Hostsman are, give and take some kbs:
MVPS = 610 kb
Lowe´s = 71 kb
hpHosts = 2500 kb
hpHosts Ads = 290 kb
I recently tried Hostsman with no side-effects. Just sits there. Check his little forum, some bug-fixes with betas, 7 betas for now, but seem stable enough.
Also check out WOT http://www.mywot.com/ which use hpHosts among other sources. Should appeal to your way of thinking. WOT give some increased latency of course but should not be a big problem. They have a forum about "Technical" issues and updates are fairly frequent. Typical security software but a test wont mess up browser.
I doubt S&D has anything to offer in comparison. Not sure about Spywareblaster. I would not let S&D mess with Firefox sqlite files btw. Should be safe enough but first of all it does not help much and secondly there are some who suspect 3rd party tools to have made many a Firefox browser funny. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5817 install, under database run "check integrity" for all sqlite files in profile folder. Or this is a feature of Firefox, dont know. Can be very hard to diagnose a strange Firefox if sqlite files are corrupted - has zero build-in check yet so just saying...
I just read this report out yesterday http://nsslabs.com/browser-security-malware-3Q2009 seems like blacklisting has some life left. I doubt you can redo their results though, IE 2.5 times better is over the top, but was there not something about their first report being paid by MS? Need deep deep insight in testing environment and validity of sources. Can get the result you want if knowing which MS/Google use. "new urls added as they were discovered" "from a variety of sources" details please I would rather use WOT and disable browser filters than the other way around, but nice with focus on this since all users benefit. Google/Firefox wont be pleased if this report catches headlines. Could even be annoying to some AV products. Ive mainly tested with hpHosts which just happens to be one of WOTs main sources so easy win for WOT... But those 81% seem very optimistic to me. If a little MS biased they are stupid - 10-20% better would have been more believable. Google numbers more realistic, a bit on the low side perhaps. Even if test is pure as snow this can change within days/hours if MS starts to drink too much coffee and Google goes WTF and add domains like crazy - not really possible to test since this live 24/7.
Can also add Opendns for even more dumb effective blacklisting. You could end up surfing safer with all this than those who only trust magic scanner
Dont think it actually block sites, or not that many. If you want that try Hostsman http://www.abelhadigital.com/ with hpHosts file http://hosts-file.net/ Beta-version allow you to use a partial=daily updated hpHosts file. Almost "real-time" protection. Has white lists, remove duplicates so in theory you can use 10 hostsfiles, makes it easy to add domain as well. Also build-in mini-server to respond with "Blocked by ..." or a gif. Even logging. Works very well, old annoyances with hosts files are pretty much gone. With good sources it is easy to find sites which output give AV problems if not sites themself. Scams in all colors, bad business ethics or other unwanted features. So must be good idea if you happen to go such places and click away. Or a good idea because you like the thought that it is not possible to try
If you only want to remove ads use Peter Lowe´s adserver list, also selectable in Hostsman. Size difference from those in Hostsman are, give and take some kbs:MVPS = 610 kb
Lowe´s = 71 kb
hpHosts = 2500 kb
hpHosts Ads = 290 kb
I recently tried Hostsman with no side-effects. Just sits there. Check his little forum, some bug-fixes with betas, 7 betas for now, but seem stable enough.
Also check out WOT http://www.mywot.com/ which use hpHosts among other sources. Should appeal to your way of thinking. WOT give some increased latency of course but should not be a big problem. They have a forum about "Technical" issues and updates are fairly frequent. Typical security software but a test wont mess up browser.
I doubt S&D has anything to offer in comparison. Not sure about Spywareblaster. I would not let S&D mess with Firefox sqlite files btw. Should be safe enough but first of all it does not help much and secondly there are some who suspect 3rd party tools to have made many a Firefox browser funny. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5817 install, under database run "check integrity" for all sqlite files in profile folder. Or this is a feature of Firefox, dont know. Can be very hard to diagnose a strange Firefox if sqlite files are corrupted - has zero build-in check yet so just saying...
I just read this report out yesterday http://nsslabs.com/browser-security-malware-3Q2009 seems like blacklisting has some life left. I doubt you can redo their results though, IE 2.5 times better is over the top, but was there not something about their first report being paid by MS? Need deep deep insight in testing environment and validity of sources. Can get the result you want if knowing which MS/Google use. "new urls added as they were discovered" "from a variety of sources" details please
I would rather use WOT and disable browser filters than the other way around, but nice with focus on this since all users benefit. Google/Firefox wont be pleased if this report catches headlines. Could even be annoying to some AV products. Ive mainly tested with hpHosts which just happens to be one of WOTs main sources so easy win for WOT... But those 81% seem very optimistic to me. If a little MS biased they are stupid - 10-20% better would have been more believable. Google numbers more realistic, a bit on the low side perhaps. Even if test is pure as snow this can change within days/hours if MS starts to drink too much coffee and Google goes WTF and add domains like crazy - not really possible to test since this live 24/7.Can also add Opendns for even more dumb effective blacklisting. You could end up surfing safer with all this than those who only trust magic scanner
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter