Guest Buffalo Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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. :)
Guest Roger Fink Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates Care to elaborate? -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://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. > >
Guest DaffyD® Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:OYAcCTtWIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Care to elaborate? > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://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.
Guest DaffyD® Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates "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.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 http://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 >> http://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. > > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 http://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. > >
Guest bobster Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 http://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 >> http://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. > > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 http://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 > http://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 >>> http://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. >> >> >> >> >
Guest DaffyD® Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 > http://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 > >> http://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. > > > > > > > > >
Guest DaffyD® Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 > http://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 > >> http://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. > > > > > > > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 http://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 >> http://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 >> >> http://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. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
Guest paul Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates 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 !!
Guest arielbio@hotmail.com Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 RE: AdAware Updates "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. >
Guest thanatoid Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: AdAware Updates "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
Recommended Posts