Does anybody else have difficulties with spyblaster and spyguard after
installation? When I try to run it after I get
Component "MSCOMCTL.OCX" or one of it's dependencies not correctly
registered: a file missing or invalid.
Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks in advance!
"Dan" <djones21@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:_Au7b.1776$Gr.75962@read1.cgocable.net...
> Does anybody else have difficulties with spyblaster and spyguard after
> installation? When I try to run it after I get
>
> Component "MSCOMCTL.OCX" or one of it's dependencies not correctly
> registered: a file missing or invalid.
>
> Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks in advance!
>
Sure - EZ. Get Spybot Search and Destroy instead of Spyguard.
If you run SpyBot's Immunize check, and if you have SpywareBlaster
installed, then notice at the bottom that it says:
You have JavaCools SpywareBlaster installed. SpywareBlaster will
give you much more control on ActiveX protection. Click here to run it.
SpywareBlaster does not remain resident. It is a static application
that you update and then exercise to put kill bits in your registry to
prevent existing or future spyware from running. It can also add sites
to the Always Block list for cookie management in Internet Explorer to
block any cookies from those sites. Yet another status line in SpyBot's
Immunize after performing the check says:
462 bad products already blocked. 9 additional protections
possible.
The ones already blocked were those from SpywareBlaster, so apparently
SpyBot has 9 more immunizations that SpywareBlaster did not have. It
would be polite if SpyBot told me what were those immunizations that it
proposed to do. If SpyBot has more immunizations than SpywareBlaster,
why is SpyBot recommending the use of SpywareBlaster?
While SpyBot's Immunize allows you to enable some browser anti-hijacking
features, they do not include SpywareGuard's ability to detect the
installation of BHOs (Browser Helper Objects) and prompt you so you can
decide whether or not to leave them installed. However, it is peculiar
that SpywareGuard does not provide the functionality to enable or
disable BHOs; you can only decide to leave them installed or to
uninstall them. But then neither does SpyBot's Tools -> BHO panel allow
you to do anything regarding BHOs; it just reports them. To
enable/disable them, you need to get something like BHO Demon or BHO
Cop. I like SpywareGuard's prompting me so I know something happened
and can then make a choice. I have, however, also added SpyBot's
download monitoring BHO to IE.
--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Share with others. Post replies in the newsgroup.
** If present, remove all "-nix" from my email address.
__________________________________________________ __________
"mto" <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote in message
news:-vqdnXZ0ad5c5sOiXTWJkQ@seg.net...
>
> "Dan" <djones21@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:_Au7b.1776$Gr.75962@read1.cgocable.net...
> > Does anybody else have difficulties with spyblaster and spyguard
after
> > installation? When I try to run it after I get
> >
> > Component "MSCOMCTL.OCX" or one of it's dependencies not correctly
> > registered: a file missing or invalid.
> >
> > Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks in advance!
> >
>
> Sure - EZ. Get Spybot Search and Destroy instead of Spyguard.
>
>
"Dan" <djones21@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<_Au7b.1776$Gr.75962@read1.cgocable.net>...
> Does anybody else have difficulties with spyblaster and spyguard after
> installation? When I try to run it after I get
>
> Component "MSCOMCTL.OCX" or one of it's dependencies not correctly
> registered: a file missing or invalid.
>
> Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks in advance!
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
"Common User Issues/Missing Files:
Does SpywareBlaster not run, and report that a file named
"msvbvm60.dll" is missing?
If so, downloading the following MS run-time installer will install
the missing file and
allow you to use SpywareBlaster without any problems:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...vbrun60sp5.exe
Do you get an error that "MSCOMCTL.OCX" cannot be found?
If so, use the following installer to copy the file to your system:
MSCOMCTL Installer"
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:46:17 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dan"
<djones21@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> Does anybody else have difficulties with spyblaster ...
[snip]
SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off, since its primary (near-sole, in
fact) function is to de-fang *some* ActiveX controls. But ActiveX has *NO*
place on any properly configured computer system, especially one connected
in any way to the Internet. That combination is *iherently* 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.
--
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 <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:ahl0mvc415lv79mf66vb1sfkn0epcqb51c@news.rcn.c om:
> SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off
How so? It's freeware/donationware, not charged for.
Robin T Cox wrote:
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:ahl0mvc415lv79mf66vb1sfkn0epcqb51c@news.rcn.c om:
>
>> SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off
>
> How so? It's freeware/donationware, not charged for.
He's just jealous because he did not invent it. Update today to version
2.6.1 and updated hijacker list of 812 items.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:31:38 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Robin T Cox
<robin2803@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:ahl0mvc415lv79mf66vb1sfkn0epcqb51c@news.rcn.c om:
>
> > SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off
>
> How so? It's freeware/donationware, not charged for.
I presume you are questioning the term "rip-off", not "pointless".
The latter term is blindingly obvious, so no need to expound further on
that.
The former term is not so obvious, but just as valid: First on the grounds
of the false sense of security it instills in anyone foolish enough to use
it -- to at least some extent, they are being deprived of the healthy
skepticism that *could* actually help protect them. Second on the grounds
that the author *does* ask for money from his victims, even if he does not
demand it; by my yardstick anyway, asking for money in return for something
that cannot possibly provide any real value is indeed a "rip-off".
--
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote