Spyware blaster

[Jiggy]

I downloaded and installed Spyware blaster and now i have question that i cant find answers to on there web site.

Has/is anyone used/using Opera browser with Spyware Blaster and did it work ? As it only lists IE, Mozilla-FireFox.

And how is it ment to detect any incoming spyware if its not running back ground scans, and only scans upon start.

[FastLearner]

As of November, 2004, Spyware Blaster did not support Opera. I'm not sure if Lavasoft is planning on adding Opera support or not in the future.

As far as how it works, see this page (http://www.majorgeeks.com/review.php?id=19) for a good breakdown. Just remember, if you do use it with IE or Firefox, to keep it updated regularly.

[Jiggy]

Thanks for that quick reply newbie,

Sounds good if your using IE, FireFox, is it a program still to be used to the same standars with Opera ?

[david eaton]

Spyware Blaster only needs to run once, at installation, and again after an update. It does not scan anything, it sets a "kill bit" for known malware, preventing it from being installed at all. Once the kill bit is set, the program is not needed again until it is updated.

[Jiggy]

Thanks David,

Ive never knew that, just reading a few pages from google about the "kill bit", and i have learned something new.

[FastLearner]

As far as something that works with Opera, I'm still not sure. This is not really and anti-spyware scanner, per say, but Anti Tracks (http://www.spychecker.com/program/antitracks.html) does not show up on the rogue list, so it may be legit. I'd still wait to see if anyone has used it before I'd install it on my machine. Just out of curiosity, why do you prefer Opera over Firefox, anyway?

[PrntRhd]

Newbie2004, you lost me there. We are talking about SpywareBlaster and you posted about AntiTracks.
SpywareBlaster does not scan, it just places restrictions on certain websites to keep spyware from loading.

[FastLearner]

Right, but it does not support Opera, which is the browser Jiggy is using.

Edit: And Jiggy asked if anyone knew of any alternate software to use with Opera.

[PrntRhd]

Ah, I see, an alternative to SWB.

[FastLearner]

Right. Looks like you posted to fast...:D

[Jiggy]

Thanks lads,

I changed from IE to Opera about 8 months ago and tried nothing else, i use FireFox on my w2k box, mite be worth trying firefox on main box for a bit.

[Jiggy]

Ok im now using FireFox on main pc, and i`ll let you now later.

[Budfred]

If I remember correctly, Javacool writes SpywareBlaster, not LavaSoft and I am pretty sure that Javacool is not working on Opera support...

[Jiggy]

Thanks Budfred,

I will carry on using FireFox for a while, but at the moment i like it a bit, had too download macromedia flash to use the chat room, im having fun playing.

[FastLearner]

If I remember correctly, Javacool writes SpywareBlaster, not LavaSoft and I am pretty sure that Javacool is not working on Opera support...

Oops. Thanks for catching that typo, Budfred. I got SWB mixed up with Adaware SE for a minute there.

[Paul Komski]

I don't think its a matter of the application not supporting Opera but of Opera not needing spywareblaster since it doesnt use ActiveX controls. The killbits work by blocking the loading of known baddie ActiveX controls using their CLSIDs in the IE settings in the Registry. Newer versions may do more than just set killbits but Opera is not concerned with these items and doesnt even access the IE registry entries.

The app also blocks certain tracking cookies for mozilla/firefox but these are in a different league to ActiveX controls which is how a gread deal of malware gets installed - http://malektips.com/spywareblaster_0001.html

[Jiggy]

Thanks Paul,

Ive looked into this more and found Opera (http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=415)
doesnt support ActiveX or VBScript, however, it looks like Opera, Mozilla and Apple are getting together with plug-in makers Adobe and others (Link) (http://www.techworld.com/applications/news/index.cfm?newsid=1856)
working on a plug-in for the above browsers.

[Paul Komski]

"With Microsoft, in the past their focus has been more on just getting things done."
That's a misquote if ever I saw one. It needs to be rephrased someting like: "With Microsoft, in the past their focus has been in getting expensive and glossy stuff out early and not caring one jot about their clients' security. They are only finally beginning to tighten up their act because finally enough people have begun to cotton-on and they are only now afraid of losing market share. M$ is a TOTALLY cynical organisation and never forget it.

The mere fact that these other organisations want to create a "universal plugin" has little to do with competing with M$'s ActiveX controls than in helping the development of DHTML more generally. Plugins already exist, notably java, that have nothing to do with ActiveX - so I don't necessarily view this as a bad or worrying development - particularly if you are given an option to opt into using them unlike the M$ approach were you opted in automatically and have to fight your way out. Just try getting rid of MSN for example.

[Donn]

"That's a misquote if ever I saw one. It needs to be rephrased someting like: "With Microsoft, in the past their focus has been in getting expensive and glossy stuff out early and not caring one jot about their clients' security. They are only finally beginning to tighten up their act because finally enough people have begun to cotton-on and they are only now afraid of losing market share. M$ is a TOTALLY cynical organisation and never forget it."

For further and a sickeningly deeper view of this truth go to
http://www.grc.com
and read what Steve Gibson has to say about his interactions with Microshaft. Check out the free stuff while you're there if you haven't already. . . .