W7 Optimal protection & Update query?

[Yezinki]

Hi there,

I have a few questions regarding W7.

1. In Optional windows update what is Microsoft Silverlight (KB2495644) update & should it be installed?

2. As to protection what is the reasonable protection combo?

3. Spywareblaster should be installed for IE correct?

4. That leaves Avast,MSE, Windows defender, MBAM, SAS?

5. I usually never used windows defender using Vista & in Options > unchecked Auto scan & real time protection.

6. How good is MSE, does one need Avast with it too & vice versa, do the 2 clash & have incompatibility issues, is MSE more versatile & has better detection etc?

7. Should MBAM or SAS be on demand?

Hoping to hear you expert views, suggestions,

Regards!

[Yezinki]

Is MSE available for XP too?

Regards!

[Pondus]

1. yes http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&defl=en&q=define:Microsoft+Silverlight&sa=X&ei=9ZVsTbPnKcaaOoHr2YAD&ved=0CBkQkAE

2. avast + MBAM pro

3. not necesarry

4. avast + MBAMpro + SASfree

5. OK

6. good, very few FP...but never install more then one AV
if you do it can create all kind of mysterious windows errors and false positive detections

7. see 2 and 4

8. MSE works on XP also

[Yezinki]

Thanks Pondus for sharing your expert views.

Can I ask why you aren't in favor of Spywareblaster for IE?

Regards!

[Pondus]

well i have never used it much, but our expert malware remover Essexboy said it was not necessary as todays browser have most of what it offer built in

[YoKenny]

well i have never used it much, but our expert malware remover Essexboy said it was not necessary as todays browser have most of what it offer built in

Can you quote where Essexboy says this

Multi-Angle Protection
• Prevent the installation of ActiveX-based spyware and other potentially unwanted programs.
• Block spying / tracking via cookies.
• Restrict the actions of potentially unwanted or dangerous web sites.

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

By the way Spywareblaster is for Firefox as well.

[Hard_ROCKER]

Well it certainly doesn't hurt to keep it installed, it's only a few megabytes big and it doesn't run in the memory so personally i keep it installed and updated.

[Pondus]

Quote from: Pondus on Today at 08:14:43
well i have never used it much, but our expert malware remover Essexboy said it was not necessary as todays browser have most of what it offer built in
Can you quote where Essexboy says this

ooooo......it was in a post where somone asked the same question...about spywareblaster..
but to find that post....      i can ask him to repeat it/comment here



OBS: got it  http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=67762.msg570251#msg570251




 

[Omid Farhang]

Many people think because SpywareBlaster does not install Background Process or Driver/Service it will not slow-down the computer.
But they are wrong!

This little program put lots of Registry Entries where windows read them all while loading Explorer.exe and some other programs (based on their features) which cause a real delay in opening them (it will more clear if you have enabled option to open Explorer window in separated process).

[YoKenny]

Many people think because SpywareBlaster does not install Background Process or Driver/Service it will not slow-down the computer.
But they are wrong!

This little program put lots of Registry Entries where windows read them all while loading Explorer.exe and some other programs (based on their features) which cause a real delay in opening them (it will more clear if you have enabled option to open Explorer window in separated process).

As usuall you have no clue of how SpywareBlaster works.

[YoKenny]

Quote from: Pondus on Today at 08:14:43
well i have never used it much, but our expert malware remover Essexboy said it was not necessary as todays browser have most of what it offer built in
Can you quote where Essexboy says this

ooooo......it was in a post where somone asked the same question...about spywareblaster..
but to find that post....      i can ask him to repeat it/comment here

OBS: got it  http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=67762.msg570251#msg570251

He never responded!

[Omid Farhang]

As usuall you have no clue of how SpywareBlaster works.

You have got all knowledge around the world, nothing left for me!

[Hard_ROCKER]

From my personal experience SpywareBlaster doesn't slow anything down and i've been using this program for years now(used it on XP, Vista and 7) but let's see what the developer has to say about this.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1761037&postcount=2

Hi,

A few quick things up-front:
It's free.
There should be zero noticable slowdown from enabling SpywareBlaster's protection.
Disabling All Protection removes the changes SpywareBlaster makes.
Thus, I'd encourage you to download, install it, enable all protection, and see for yourself. If, for whatever reason, you want to remove it - just Disable All Protection and uninstall it. That's it.

----

Now, to expand on the above a bit:

SpywareBlaster uses various mechanisms built-into web browsers to lock down certain actions / potential vectors for potentially unwanted software / cookies / etc. These mechanisms require, in essence, lists.

At some point, these lists must indeed be loaded so they can be quickly searched for matches. (This is often done *once*. In some cases, this means at browser startup. In other cases it means when a registry hive is loaded. This is incredibly fast, and often even moreso on Windows 7.)

For each page you browse to, these list(s) may be searched for matches. This is often done by what is effectively direct lookup. (The browser can ask "is example.com on the list", and can obtain the answer without having to look at every item on the list. Thus, the number of items on the list has little impact on the time it takes to see if the list contains a particular item - it is effectively instantaneous. The technical specifics of this were explained in another thread, which it sounds like you may have read.)

To summarize: There should be no noticeable slow-down.

Yes, with SpywareBlaster installed it means some additional things have to happen. But because of how everything works together, and some technical magic, you should not notice *any negative impact*. To use a popular English proverb, it is essentially possible to have your cake and eat it too. And if you don't want to either eat or have cake... you can just Disable All Protection and uninstall the program. 

I hope this helps provides a bit more clarity. 

Best regards,

-Javacool

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1381783&postcount=4

Hi,

Originally Posted by hotlips69
Thanks for the detailed answer!

To finally clear up my performance-related worries, is it Spybot or SpywareBlaster that adds a zillion entries to the restricted zone?

I'm not sure about Spybot, but SpywareBlaster adds a focused group of a few thousand entries to Internet Explorer's Restricted Sites zone. However the quantity really need not be a concern (see below).

Originally Posted by hotlips69
Surely every time you visit a webpage, this entire list has to be checked which must impact browsing performance?

I presume the same would apply to the CLSID killbits entries?

Internet Explorer loads the Restricted Sites list once (when you first start Internet Explorer) which, even with a ridiculously large number of entries, does not cause a noticable delay. It then stores the list in an internal data structure, and checks each site you browse against this internal data structure in what is likely a direct lookup (i.e. it doesn't have to scan the entire list to find an item).

The method that Internet Explorer utilizes for ActiveX Compatibility (killbit) entries is also exceedingly efficient. When an ActiveX control is being instantiated, Internet Explorer queries for the existence of a single registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\<ActiveX Control CLISD>. This single registry key look-up occurs whether or not the kill bit (or even that key) exists, so having the kill bit in place provides essentially zero performance impact while providing a useful benefit.

The summary of all of this is: you don't have to worry about a performance impact, period.

Best regards,

-Javacool

[Omid Farhang]

Thank you Darth.Mikey for posting this.
These days all big companies are working on make all their products faster and faster even if millisecond... and impact of SpywareBlaster is worse than what has been said by them. You can Test it yourself. (Some people will not see difference because don't want to see)

I would rather trust my AntiVirus and it's WebGuard for this propose, if I need more protection I will use somewhat which don't affect performance like HostsMan MVPS and built-in features of browser.