Spybot S&D Past Its Prime?

[History Fan]

The final version of Spybot 1.4 is definitely needed and long overdue.
Of course, I'm assuming version 1.4 will be an improvement over 1.3.

[Echy]

History Fan wrote:
> The final version of Spybot 1.4 is definitely needed and long overdue.
> Of course, I'm assuming version 1.4 will be an improvement over 1.3.
>
>

I personally don't think you can get too critical. It is still a very
good and effective program that even the tech. guru's regularly
recommend to this day.

As I understand it, one man does all the development and maintenance
work on this program. I doubt that many of us would have done as much as
he has done. And for very little reward given that it is a totally free
produce relying only on donations.


--
Regards
Echy

Greetings from Melbourne, Australia
www.visitvictoria.com.au

[Technobarbarian]

"Echy" <acuhcewrongone@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42627554$0$2401$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> History Fan wrote:
>> The final version of Spybot 1.4 is definitely needed and long
>> overdue. Of course, I'm assuming version 1.4 will be an improvement over
>> 1.3.
>>
>>
>
> I personally don't think you can get too critical. It is still a very good
> and effective program that even the tech. guru's regularly recommend to
> this day.
>
> As I understand it, one man does all the development and maintenance work
> on this program. I doubt that many of us would have done as much as he has
> done. And for very little reward given that it is a totally free produce
> relying only on donations.

"Echy" <acuhcewrongone@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4258899e$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...

> I personally don't think you can get too critical. It is still a very good
> and effective program that even the tech. guru's regularly recommend to
> this day.
>
> As I understand it one man does all the development and maintenance work
> on this program. I doubt that many of us would have done as much as he has
> done. And for very little reward given that it is a totally free produce
> relying only on donations.

I fail to understand why you keep posting this same response to
questions that were not asked. The question is not: "is this a valiant one
man effort?". The question as originally stated: "Given the problems with
updating, and the frequency thereof, and the stalled 1.4 beta 2 can Spybot
still be considered a useful spyware tool? There is
Ad-Aware SE Plus, MSAS, Spysweeper, etc. out there that seem to be updated
far more often than Spybot is so is Sypbot still useful or no longer worth
the effort?"

The answer is no, it's not a particularly effective tool. If you
operate on the assumption that it is you may neglect your protection and end
up with all sorts of nasties that it misses. I have been there and done
that. With the current generation of spyware even the combination of Spybot
and Ad-aware is very weak protection. I suspect that previous
recommendations were based on the fact that it's free and better than
nothing for those unwilling to pay for more advanced tools. The advent of
the free Microsoft Anti-spyware program have made this arguement in it's
favor very weak for all but the most ardent Microsoft bashers.

TB

[Echy]

Technobarbarian wrote:
> "Echy" <acuhcewrongone@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42627554$0$2401$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>>History Fan wrote:
>>
>>> The final version of Spybot 1.4 is definitely needed and long
>>>overdue. Of course, I'm assuming version 1.4 will be an improvement over
>>>1.3.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I personally don't think you can get too critical. It is still a very good
>>and effective program that even the tech. guru's regularly recommend to
>>this day.
>>
>>As I understand it, one man does all the development and maintenance work
>>on this program. I doubt that many of us would have done as much as he has
>>done. And for very little reward given that it is a totally free produce
>>relying only on donations.
>
>
> "Echy" <acuhcewrongone@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4258899e$0$5395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>
>>I personally don't think you can get too critical. It is still a very good
>>and effective program that even the tech. guru's regularly recommend to
>>this day.
>>
>>As I understand it one man does all the development and maintenance work
>>on this program. I doubt that many of us would have done as much as he has
>>done. And for very little reward given that it is a totally free produce
>>relying only on donations.
>
>
> I fail to understand why you keep posting this same response to
> questions that were not asked. The question is not: "is this a valiant one
> man effort?". The question as originally stated: "Given the problems with
> updating, and the frequency thereof, and the stalled 1.4 beta 2 can Spybot
> still be considered a useful spyware tool? There is
> Ad-Aware SE Plus, MSAS, Spysweeper, etc. out there that seem to be updated
> far more often than Spybot is so is Sypbot still useful or no longer worth
> the effort?"
>
> The answer is no, it's not a particularly effective tool. If you
> operate on the assumption that it is you may neglect your protection and end
> up with all sorts of nasties that it misses. I have been there and done
> that. With the current generation of spyware even the combination of Spybot
> and Ad-aware is very weak protection. I suspect that previous
> recommendations were based on the fact that it's free and better than
> nothing for those unwilling to pay for more advanced tools. The advent of
> the free Microsoft Anti-spyware program have made this arguement in it's
> favor very weak for all but the most ardent Microsoft bashers.
>
> TB
>
>
>
>
Hello Technobarbarian


For you to say "Keep" posting is a bit of a stretch. I used the same
wording ONCE before, because it said
exactly what I wanted to say, and still think, that's all.

It's just my opinion, not trying to convert you or anyone else.

Re: " The answer is no, it's not a particularly effective tool."
.............. That is just your opinion too. We both can have opinions
and they can both be totally different. I can see no problem with that
personally, doesn't get me upset.

Could be an idea just a deep breath man Life is too short to get
overcooked IMO...... although you may have, and are welcome to, a
different opinion of course.

Best wishes
Echy

P.S. I use a whole suite of programs, some free & some not, to protect
my computers and those of my
customers (including the MS one).

[Technobarbarian]

"Echy" <acuhcewrongone@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:426284b2$0$2401$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...

> Re: " The answer is no, it's not a particularly effective tool."
> ............. That is just your opinion too. We both can have opinions
> and they can both be totally different. I can see no problem with that
> personally, doesn't get me upset.
>
> Could be an idea just a deep breath man Life is too short to get
> overcooked IMO...... although you may have, and are welcome to, a
> different opinion of course.

I don't see where you get "overcooked" out of all of that. Your post
was a "hmmm, that's not really the question" the first time I saw it and
then "hmmm, not really the question" again the second time. It's something I
see a lot of on usenet lately--responses that don't really answer go to the
original question.
>
> Best wishes
> Echy
>
> P.S. I use a whole suite of programs, some free & some not, to protect my
> computers and those of my
> customers (including the MS one).

On this we agree and I still haven't pulled Spybot off my machine, but
it hasn't done anything for me in awhile either and probably will come off
in the near future. On my machine, after scanning with Ad-aware and MS
antispyware there's nothing left that Spybot is capable of finding, which is
a matter of fact and not opinion.

TB

[ted s.]

Technobarbarian wrote:
>
> With the current generation of spyware even the
> combination of Spybot and Ad-aware is very weak protection. I suspect
> that previous recommendations were based on the fact that it's free
> and better than nothing for those unwilling to pay for more advanced
> tools.
Neither Spybot nor the free Ad-Aware pretend to offer "protection" from
spyware, except for Spybot's immunize function. They merely try to clean up
after the fact.
Just what are these "more advanced tools" that you like?

[Technobarbarian]

"ted s." <teds@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:426298ca$0$10814$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.co m...
> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>> With the current generation of spyware even the
>> combination of Spybot and Ad-aware is very weak protection. I suspect
>> that previous recommendations were based on the fact that it's free
>> and better than nothing for those unwilling to pay for more advanced
>> tools.
> Neither Spybot nor the free Ad-Aware pretend to offer "protection" from
> spyware, except for Spybot's immunize function. They merely try to clean
> up after the fact.

You're mostly arguing semantics, but the paid versions of Ad-aware do
offer active protection.

> Just what are these "more advanced tools" that you like?

Right now the most effective tools that I'm using are: Webroot Spy
Sweeper, MS Antispyware, TDS-3, A-squared and Norton Anti-virus. A
difficult, but important area is rootkits. At present I'm using
Sysinternal's Rootkit Revealer and F-secure Blacklight. Your firewall is
important backup protection. I use Kerio, there are of course a number of
other reasonably effective programs available. For those who consider
Microsoft to be the evil empire there's another offshoot of Giant
Antispyware, Sunbelt Software's CounterSpy. I tried it and liked it, but it
messed up my MS Antispyware undate function so I removed it. Hopefully newer
versions will correct this problem. CWShredder is another essential tool.
This is, of course, not a definitive list, it's just, since you asked, what
I like and happen to be using at the moment. My level of paranoia is such
that I'm trying out new stuff and changing things around pretty regularly.

TB