SpywareBlaster

[Darkhorse]

Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to redownload the main
program every time a update is available?

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:36:11 -0000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dick
Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Darkhorse wrote:
>
> > Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to redownload
> > the main program every time a update is available?
>
> Hi Darkhorse,
>
> If you would download the entire program each time you still would have
> to update it through the Internet.
>
[snip]

Which is (at least) Strike Two.

While such integrated "auto-update" features are popular, and becoming
moreso, they also inherently place the user in the unenviable position of
not being able to properly monitor or control changes to his own system's
configuration; and worse, it's necessarily making these changes while you
have a live open connection to the 'net going -- not a good idea, in my
book.

Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something of a moot
point since the program itself is by definition essentially pointless: It
concerns itself (at least nearly) exclusively to blocking *some* ActiveX
controls; but if the target system is set up properly, NO ActiveX controls
would ever get downloaded or executed anyway. Beyond that, I've seen no
evidence that it does anything which other utilities (such as Cookie Cop,
Proxomitron, InCtrl, or the old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do
better.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Aaron]

Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:214qkv4787npe88o46gvlamgdq1vt7cgth@news.rcn.c om:

> Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something of
> a moot point since the program itself is by definition essentially
> pointless: It concerns itself (at least nearly) exclusively to
> blocking *some* ActiveX controls; but if the target system is set up
> properly, NO ActiveX controls would ever get downloaded or executed
> anyway. Beyond that, I've seen no evidence that it does anything
> which other utilities (such as Cookie Cop, Proxomitron, InCtrl, or the
> old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do better.

Spywareblaster can be useful. Install it on your son's or daughter's (or
anyone who is inherently reckless with regard to computer security
despite endless amts of warning and lecuring) computer, and it works
transparently. Anything else like proxomitron, or more secure IE settings
are very visible and can be easily changed or closed by even the least
experienced user, who

And yes, i know people should not be using Internet explorer in your
book, but i'm not God




Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

[Dick Hazeleger]

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:36:11 -0000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dick
> Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> > Darkhorse wrote:
> >
> > > Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to
> redownload > > the main program every time a update is available?
> >
> > Hi Darkhorse,
> >
> > If you would download the entire program each time you still would
> have > to update it through the Internet.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Which is (at least) Strike Two.
>
> While such integrated "auto-update" features are popular, and becoming
> moreso, they also inherently place the user in the unenviable
> position of not being able to properly monitor or control changes to
> his own system's configuration; and worse, it's necessarily making
> these changes while you have a live open connection to the 'net going
> -- not a good idea, in my book.
>
> Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something of
> a moot point since the program itself is by definition essentially
> pointless: It concerns itself (at least nearly) exclusively to
> blocking some ActiveX controls; but if the target system is set up
> properly, NO ActiveX controls would ever get downloaded or executed
> anyway. Beyond that, I've seen no evidence that it does anything
> which other utilities (such as Cookie Cop, Proxomitron, InCtrl, or
> the old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do better.

It is strike two, I agree, Jay, but I was pointing the OP's attention
to the fact that - like many AV and AT programs - they need to be
updated immediately after installation.

I DISagree however that the program is "useless", perhaps for you...
but for thousands of others who don't want to dig in their system this
a fine and free solution... Wake up Jay, the world doesn't contain only
"experts" (as the last few weeks have shown all too clearly). Experts
who tell people that a firewall is usefull only for cable and xDSL
users... Yeah.. well, I saw an "open system" being infected with
blaster seconds after the connection to the Internet was made... that
says enough IMNSHO! IMO one can better be too conscious than too
ignorant!

Regards
Dick

[BoB]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:18:39 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:36:11 -0000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dick
>Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> > Darkhorse wrote:
> >
> > > Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to redownload
> > > the main program every time a update is available?
> >
> > Hi Darkhorse,
> >
> > If you would download the entire program each time you still would have
> > to update it through the Internet.
> >
> [snip]
>
>Which is (at least) Strike Two.
>
>While such integrated "auto-update" features are popular, and becoming
>moreso, they also inherently place the user in the unenviable position of
>not being able to properly monitor or control changes to his own system's
>configuration;

New changes via update, are made only for those items 'you' select.
It is the only auto-updating program where you 'do' have control and
can easily see what changes are 'proposed' prior to your acceptance.

>and worse, it's necessarily making these changes while you
>have a live open connection to the 'net going -- not a good idea, in my
>book.

There is no reason to leave the connection open. The info is downloaded,
disconnect and decide which of those changes 'you' want to implement.

>Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something of a moot
>point since the program itself is by definition essentially pointless: It
>concerns itself (at least nearly) exclusively to blocking *some* ActiveX
>controls; but if the target system is set up properly, NO ActiveX controls
>would ever get downloaded or executed anyway.

The vast majority of users don't know enough to take control of ActiveX
or any of the other semi-dangerous functions. But then they also don't
know enough to DL and use Spyware Blaster either.

>Beyond that, I've seen no
>evidence that it does anything which other utilities (such as Cookie Cop,
>Proxomitron,

Some users do not want to get involved with proxy software or have
simpler ways to control cookies.

>InCtrl,

IC is for monitoring system and registry changes during installs of
new programs. Nothing similar to Spyware Blaster's function.

>or the old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do better.

These are after-the-fact cleanup programs. Spyware Blaster is a
prevention tool.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit-picking.

BoB

[YoKenny]

BoB wrote:
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
>> "Dick Hazeleger" wrote:
>>> Darkhorse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to redownload
>>>> the main program every time a update is available?
>>>
>>> Hi Darkhorse,
>>>
>>> If you would download the entire program each time you still would
>>> have to update it through the Internet.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Which is (at least) Strike Two.
>>
>> While such integrated "auto-update" features are popular, and
>> becoming moreso, they also inherently place the user in the
>> unenviable position of not being able to properly monitor or control
>> changes to his own system's configuration;
>
> New changes via update, are made only for those items 'you' select.
> It is the only auto-updating program where you 'do' have control and
> can easily see what changes are 'proposed' prior to your acceptance.
>
>> and worse, it's necessarily making these changes while you
>> have a live open connection to the 'net going -- not a good idea, in
>> my book.
>
> There is no reason to leave the connection open. The info is
> downloaded, disconnect and decide which of those changes 'you' want
> to implement.
>
>> Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something
>> of a moot point since the program itself is by definition
>> essentially pointless: It concerns itself (at least nearly)
>> exclusively to blocking *some* ActiveX controls; but if the target
>> system is set up properly, NO ActiveX controls would ever get
>> downloaded or executed anyway.
>
> The vast majority of users don't know enough to take control of
> ActiveX
> or any of the other semi-dangerous functions. But then they also don't
> know enough to DL and use Spyware Blaster either.
>
>> Beyond that, I've seen no
>> evidence that it does anything which other utilities (such as Cookie
>> Cop, Proxomitron,
>
> Some users do not want to get involved with proxy software or have
> simpler ways to control cookies.
>
>> InCtrl,
>
> IC is for monitoring system and registry changes during installs of
> new programs. Nothing similar to Spyware Blaster's function.
>
>> or the old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do better.
>
> These are after-the-fact cleanup programs. Spyware Blaster is a
> prevention tool.
>
> Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit-picking.

You are not nit-picking Jay T. Blocksome is.
Wish he would go and spend the rest of his life installing Linux and
harasing the Linux folk and we would not have to read his inane drivel that
people respond to trying to give him a clue.
Trying to decide which is better to describe him:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

[mto]

"YoKenny" <YKnot@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:_A94b.46162$kH3.29112@news02.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> BoB wrote:
> > Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> >> "Dick Hazeleger" wrote:
> >>> Darkhorse wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to redownload
> >>>> the main program every time a update is available?
> >>>
> >>> Hi Darkhorse,
> >>>
> >>> If you would download the entire program each time you still would
> >>> have to update it through the Internet.
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Which is (at least) Strike Two.
> >>
> >> While such integrated "auto-update" features are popular, and
> >> becoming moreso, they also inherently place the user in the
> >> unenviable position of not being able to properly monitor or control
> >> changes to his own system's configuration;
> >
> > New changes via update, are made only for those items 'you' select.
> > It is the only auto-updating program where you 'do' have control and
> > can easily see what changes are 'proposed' prior to your acceptance.
> >
> >> and worse, it's necessarily making these changes while you
> >> have a live open connection to the 'net going -- not a good idea, in
> >> my book.
> >
> > There is no reason to leave the connection open. The info is
> > downloaded, disconnect and decide which of those changes 'you' want
> > to implement.
> >
> >> Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something
> >> of a moot point since the program itself is by definition
> >> essentially pointless: It concerns itself (at least nearly)
> >> exclusively to blocking *some* ActiveX controls; but if the target
> >> system is set up properly, NO ActiveX controls would ever get
> >> downloaded or executed anyway.
> >
> > The vast majority of users don't know enough to take control of
> > ActiveX
> > or any of the other semi-dangerous functions. But then they also don't
> > know enough to DL and use Spyware Blaster either.
> >
> >> Beyond that, I've seen no
> >> evidence that it does anything which other utilities (such as Cookie
> >> Cop, Proxomitron,
> >
> > Some users do not want to get involved with proxy software or have
> > simpler ways to control cookies.
> >
> >> InCtrl,
> >
> > IC is for monitoring system and registry changes during installs of
> > new programs. Nothing similar to Spyware Blaster's function.
> >
> >> or the old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do better.
> >
> > These are after-the-fact cleanup programs. Spyware Blaster is a
> > prevention tool.
> >
> > Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit-picking.
>
> You are not nit-picking Jay T. Blocksome is.
> Wish he would go and spend the rest of his life installing Linux and
> harasing the Linux folk and we would not have to read his inane drivel
that
> people respond to trying to give him a clue.
> Trying to decide which is better to describe him:
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
>

ROFLMAO - dying here. Real toss up though

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On 29 Aug 2003 20:39:59 +0800, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Aaron
<aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Spywareblaster can be useful.
[snip]

No, not if the system in question is set up properly to start with, it
can't.

> Install it on your son's or daughter's (or
> anyone who is inherently reckless with regard to computer security
> despite endless amts of warning and lecuring) computer,
[snip]

Beyond the fact that my (step-)son is 25, married, and is only just now
*beginning* to listen to me, sometimes[1], your premise is flawed. Giving
your child (the use of) a system which is so horridly misconfigured that
"Spywareblaster" *could* potentially do any good is, in and of itself, a
*MUCH* larger problem, which "Spywareblaster" (like all other similar
after-the-fact "band-aids") is inherently inapable of addressing.

> ...and it works
> transparently. Anything else like proxomitron, or more secure IE settings
> are very visible and can be easily changed or closed by even the least
> experienced user, who
>
[snip]

At which point, what you are describing is a parenting problem, not a
technical problem -- and that's a whole 'nother discussion. If you cannot
trust your kid to leave the system configuration as you want it to be, then
you have MUCH larger problems to wrestle with than which after-the-fact
band-aid utility programs to use for which purpose. Hence, the mention of
Proxo, etc., was intended only to acknowledge that you would presumably be
using some or all of these other utilities anyway (for other reasons); so
any of "Spywareblaster"'s incidental functions (i.e., those beyond dealing
with ActiveX controls) would therefore already be dealt with.

> And yes, i know people should not be using Internet explorer in your
> book, but i'm not God
>
[snip]

The $DEITY of your choice is completely beside the point. The FACTS are
clear -- ActiveX has *NO* place on any properly configured computer system,
especially one connected in any way to the Internet. That combination is an
open invitation to Bad Things[tm]. It inescapably follows from this that
having any program installed which can or will download and/or install ANY
ActiveX controls disqualifies a system from being described as "properly
configured". The fact that many shiny new computer systems come out of
their boxes similarly misconfigured does *NOT* change that.



Footnotes:
[1] - It takes a father to appreciate Mark Twain's famous quote: "When I
was seventeen I thought my father was the stupidest man I had ever met.
When I was twenty-one it was amazing how much the old man had learned in
those four years"


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:03:54 -0000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dick
Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> It is strike two, I agree, Jay, but I was pointing the OP's attention
> to the fact that - like many AV and AT programs - they need to be
> updated immediately after installation.
>
[snip]

All well and good; but that is beside the point(s) that I was attempting to
get across.

> I DISagree however that the program is "useless", perhaps for you...
[snip]

Actually, I said "essentially pointless"; and I stand by that assessment.

> but for thousands of others who don't want to dig in their system this
> a fine and free solution...
[snip]

It's not a "solution" to *anything* -- it merely hides one of the symptoms
of a much larger underlying problem. In that sense, it can be reasonably
argued that it is *worse*than* useless.

> Wake up Jay, the world doesn't contain only
> "experts" (as the last few weeks have shown all too clearly).
[snip]

All the more reason to NOT give them misinformation, or imply that treating
a symptom is equivalent to (or an acceptable substitute for) curing the
disease.

> Experts
> who tell people that a firewall is usefull only for cable and xDSL
> users...
[snip]

Whom or what might you be referring to here? I know that *I* never said
that.

> Yeah.. well, I saw an "open system" being infected with
> blaster seconds after the connection to the Internet was made... that
> says enough IMNSHO!
[snip]

Based on your fuller description of that incident elsewhere, I'd say that
was more an indictment of the system setup (specifically including, but not
limited to, the use of Windows XP) than anything else.

> IMO one can better be too conscious than too
> ignorant!
>
[snip]

I'm sorry, but my parser just broke while trying to make any sense out of
that sentence. Care to try again?

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:49:56 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, BoB
<rhoward30@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit-picking.
>
> BoB

You're not "nitpicking"; you're just missing the point. My criticisms of
the integrated "self-update" features currently becoming more and more
popular were _in_general_; and in that sense tehy apply to ANY program with
such a "feature". Only if the program in quesiton does not *also* offer the
ability to update via more conventional means (such as downloading the new
version, or updated database, or whatever, via one's normal methods, then
installing it per best practice just like any other application), does the
inclusion of such a "feature" necessarily constitute a liability.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -