With so many different anti-spyware programs to chose from it's difficult to
know which are the best to install. Is there a comparison site that looks at
what is available and compares their performance to each other? If not,
what is the best to install on a PC running Windows XP?
Thanks,
Dave
This article gives you the exact information :
The Top Three
http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=228
There are more here - actual professional reviews - *not* user reviews
sometimes called "newbie press hype"....
Software Reviews
http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=4
Administrators, Advanced Members, Professional and Expert Reviews.
Since you are shopping you definately should check things here:
"Very Important Message about anti-spyware software: "
http://www.bluecollarpc.net/pcsafety.html
"It is very sad to mention that this sector of Computing Security is a
jungle. Not like others, anti-virus or firewalls. There are many bad
or fake anti-spyware softwares out here that actually hi-jack your web
browsers for one to try to force purchase to get your PC back. This is
a must website to view before purchasing any anti-spyware software !
Note that there are legal liabilities for professionals in reporting
bad software and this is a compliant website and very known at forums
and groups: "
Title: The Spyware Warrior List of Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products
& Web Sites
Description: Bad, False, Fake products
URL: http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm
Forums Owner
BlueCollarPC.Net Forums
Dave {ð¿ð} wrote:
> With so many different anti-spyware programs to chose from it's difficultto
> know which are the best to install. Is there a comparison site that looksat
> what is available and compares their performance to each other? If not,
> what is the best to install on a PC running Windows XP?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
"Gerald309" wrote in message
news:1183908635.273656.101780@n2g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
This article gives you the exact information :
The Top Three
http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=228
<snip>
--- REPLY SEPARATOR ---
Only required because Gerald posts in Usenet using quoted-printable
format (not recommended).
Voting lists are worthless for guaging the effectiveness of an
anti-malware product. Each user that votes has limited experience due
to the limited number of attacks he/she receives. Saying that you've
never been hit with malware because you use a particular product says
absolutely nothing about the coverage of that product.
Vanguard the idiot writes about Gerald309 Posts...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...42b4f006?hl=en
MY REPLIES - IN FULL BELOW TOO....
1) ""Voting lists are worthless for guaging the effectiveness of an
anti-malware product. "" WRONG
1) Number one how can consumers be wrong ? If something does not work
and we know and say so - who cares what excuses people like you give
when the product has stopped selling. What was your point ?
2) ""Each user that votes has limited experience due
2) Number two - EVEN YOU will admit this is the most prejudicial
statement the world has ever heard since Adolph Hitler introduced the
"Final Solution" - the absolution and genocide of the Hebrew Race at
will. You are that disgusting by calling everyone this - STUPID. Just
who the hell are you anyway ? You my friend need an attitude
adjustment I wish I could provide in person.
to the limited number of attacks he/she receives."" WRONG OBVIOUSLY
3) ""Saying that you've never been hit with malware because you use a
particular product says
absolutely nothing about the coverage of that product. "" WRONG -
IDIOT...
3) Statistics have chronically for over 48 months declared that 90
percent or more of world computers are infected with malware - meaning
also adware and spyware. This year the reports and warnings concerning
all legitimate websites have hit the wires lkike a Christmas Tree....
and by the way we did have a contest to "Name the Rock Vanguard
Crawled Out From Under". THESE FACTS MY FRIEND ARE FROM THE SECURITY
EXPERTS WORLDWIDE AND WORLD GOVERNMENT. This means - idiot - that AT
LEAST NINE OUT OF TEN PEOPLE are infected at any given time and the
OTHER PROTECTED PEOPLE SAYING THEY ARE NOT GETTING INFECTED BECAUSE OF
A PARTICULAR PRODUCT (LIKE THE "TOP THREE" I MENTIONED THAT PASS VB100
TOP TEST IN THE WORLD BY PROFESSIONALS AND EXPERTS) ARE EXACTLY AND
ENTIRELY CORRECT OBVIOUSLY AS THE TEN PERCENT THAT ALL EXPERTS AND
GOVERNEMENTS ARE SAYING ARE PROTECTED AND ARE QUITE CORRECT ACCORDING
TO ALL EXPERTS AND GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD..... NOW YOU JUST GOOSE-
STEP YOUR LITTLE TROLL SKINNY ASSES ON THE BIG-F- OUT OF HERE
TROLL !!!!!
THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF THIS --- TROLL !!!! THANK YOU HITLER FOR YOUR
WONDERFUL OPINIONS OF THE COMMUNITY OF COMPUTER USERS WORLD WIDE - - -
- YOUR OPINIONS ? NO NO THANKS, KEEP THEM FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE LIES
STAY WITH LIES - NOT THE TRUTH !!!! DON'T COME BACK !!!!
OH YEAH - - - ABOUT THIS::::>
""--- REPLY SEPARATOR ---
Only required because Gerald posts in Usenet using quoted-printable
format (not recommended). "": WRONG - I AM IN GOOGLE GROUPS NOT USENET
NEWS ROOMS LIKE THE OE CLIENT. TAKE THAT UP WITH GOOGLE GROUPS SERVICE
A-HOLE-STAR...
Obviously you do not understand "Consumer Tests" and the value of
them. We could take your stupidity along the lines of anyone
volunteering for "beta testing" and reporting bugs - or in the very
least what a user knows appears a very wrong occurrence with some
software - obviously. Does this make even an unskilled Intermediate
User or Novice a worthless opinion with absolutely no merit ??? What
is your problem ??? If you took a moment to fish around a bit at where
I live on the internet you might learn something. I used to speak like
you - out of turn. I learned fast to stop it on the world web - and
because I was, and am no more, a complete novie newbie. In security
this dicipline achieves the desired effect - a safe community - by
stopping the electronic pen from halting forward movement. This is not
an intellectually challenged nation of people or world. Over 4 billion
of us have figured out how to survive.
Why and what am I responding to ? You picked my post and called it
stupid. You did. There is no intellectual sweetness to hide that. You
called my post stupid because it included a public vote with the
others all in the Software Reviews section of my BlueCollarPC.Net
Forums I pay for out of my pocket to offer the Community a place to
share and learn pc security as volunteer Forums Host - and these
BlueCollarPC.Net Forums Polls are obviously in no way pretending to
conclude as fact anything - but quite the opposite as an obvious
intended broad public poll of public opinion that the general public
is well aware that any Internet Brat can purposely be a Vandal and
vote Deceptively intentionally - - - I mean we all know that just
looking at what you did obviously and is why we are all looking at you
right now trying to get out of this by telling lies in some manner
about you did not imply that and how can you derive that from that and
on and on and on. I felt it quite necessary to NOT let you go
unchecked calling my Community Efforts as stupid and / or with some
hidden intent. But very, very obviously these are broader GENERAL
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS to publically compare notes with Official
Reviews by Professionals and Experts conducted in the Securrity
Software Industry as to a BALLPARK FIGURE of what is TRUE and what IS
NOT.... Do You Get It Now ???? Maybe you are just stupid and like to
be a diarhea mouth and are constantly caught across the Net when you
do this - the age-old "leap without looking".
FULL MESSAGE YOU WON'T ERASE:
Vanguard View profile
"Gerald309" wrote in message
news:1183908635.273656.101780@n2g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
This article gives you the exact information : The Top Three
http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=228
<snip> --- REPLY SEPARATOR --- Only required because Gerald posts in
Usenet using quoted-printable format (not recommended). Voting lists
are worthless for guaging the effectiveness of an anti-malware
product. Each user that votes has limited experience due to the
limited number of attacks he/she receives. Saying that you've never
been hit with malware because you use a particular product says
absolutely nothing about the coverage of that product.
More options Jul 8, 3:48 pm
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
From: "Vanguard" <n...@mail.invalid>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 14:48:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Which anti-spyware softwear?
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"Gerald309" wrote in message
news:1183908635.273656.101780@n2g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
This article gives you the exact information :
The Top Three
http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=228
<snip>
--- REPLY SEPARATOR ---
Only required because Gerald posts in Usenet using quoted-printable
format (not recommended).
Voting lists are worthless for guaging the effectiveness of an
anti-malware product. Each user that votes has limited experience
due
to the limited number of attacks he/she receives. Saying that you've
never been hit with malware because you use a particular product says
absolutely nothing about the coverage of that product.
Now let's see if I can just enter my pre-emptive strike here to just
plainly shut this fool up before they reply over in the news room.
Now I have said or hinted that I believe this person is a complete
fraud posing as some white collar person of position in the computer
security filed - and is actually replying to public internet boards
established for this as one avenue of public help in the community.
Let's review his 3 basic statements:
1) Voting lists are worthless for guaging the effectiveness of an anti-
malware product
2) Each user that votes has limited experience due to the limited
number of attacks he/she receives
3) Saying that you've never been hit with malware because you use a
particular product says absolutely nothing about the coverage of that
product.
Okay let's say from the general feel of things - we walk into this
news room and here is this person saying this to this (actually my
post about security software).....
Okay, the substance of this person's comments actually feel
substantial and of great magnitude or as one having much gravity in
the field or implications as from a source of insider knowledge - - -
a person "talking down" to what was posted.... "talking down to" ....
"talking down to".... see it ?
Okay seeing that - you see this person in "talking down to" what was
posted that the person is establishing themselves as "above" whom they
are talking to. See it ?
Okay - simply what was said as far as computer securioty shows this
person is a complete buffoon - a circus clown - and I think everyone
does get that. But, let's take this directly to this person's
words....
You could call public user polls as completely weak in any real world
promotion of a security product - but are obviously not ruled out by
ANY security product available.... What do we always see when visiting
a security product website sale point - - - "Just listen to what Our
Customers say about our Product ! ? ... don't we... hmmm.... No I
would have to say they are very, very valued by ALL security products
and actually used as advertising the effectiveness of the product.
Okay, so this person moves on to "indict" the average user as of "low
intelligence and intellect" and embarrassingly says they have "no
experience" with spyware infection. Geez whizz... I hate to go through
with this repulsive troll but I will....
Okay, number one any quality antispyware program directly advertises
the "number of hits" blocked - actually informs the user right on the
front panel as to how many "attempts to infect" were blocked.... You
getting the same idea as me ? This fool has never even seen one
because it is a transient "living off the land for free". Sure... Mr.
Talk Down 'person of position' we should all listen into instead of
some fool with "worthless !!!" public polls at "BlueCollarPC.Net
Forums" !!!!
And the statement made was a blanket statement meaning "generally all
users at large" have limited experience - "due to the limited number
of attacks he/she receives" ..... Again, and anyone can see this right
now as true at Google, ALL SOURCES claim that up to or just over 90
Percent of ALL world computers are infected right now with malware
that includes spywares. So that the REALITY is the EXACT opposite of
what this "Mr. Talk Down BlueCollarPC.Net Forums Public Votes" says -
isn't it ? Is not the TRUTH that it is actually then that up to or
more then 9 Users out of 10 are encountering infections as we
speak ??? Or are ALL the experts liars ??? Well ??? Isn't the truth
then that almost everyone is encountering infection 24/7 ??? I mean
come on.... the person tried to slide across that the average life of
a computer user is "far and few between" encounters with infections,
malwares. That IS absurd - don't you think ?
This person makes me sick that they would pull a stunt like this and I
do indeed hope that some complete mass aggravation is being somewhat
quenched in this "smoked troll" (google it) outing.....
The point I would move onto is - okay let's say in the field you
weren't in security - you were in sales.... oh please !
_________________
*****Forum Moderator *****
BlueCollarPC.Net Forums Spyware Removal and Computing Safety
http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/index.php
"Gerald309" wrote in message
news:1184021477.086159.135170@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> ... shut this fool up ...
> ... fraud posing as some white collar person of position in the
> computer
> security filed ...
> ... this person is a complete buffoon ...
> ... this repulsive troll ....
> ... This fool ...
> ... "Mr. Talk Down BlueCollarPC.Net Forums Public Votes" ...
> ... this "smoked troll" ..
Oh hurray, I think we've found another Alan Connor wannabe.
(http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml)
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:30:35 -0700, Gerald309 <gerald309@gmail.com>
wrote:
>This article gives you the exact information :
>
>The Top Three
>http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=228
>
>There are more here - actual professional reviews - *not* user reviews
>sometimes called "newbie press hype"....
One post on a web forum and I am supposed to take that seriously? I
don't pay for anti-spyware software and I never get bit in the ass.
Here's what I use and it's all free.
MVPS Hosts File
Spywareblaster
Spybot S&D
Super Anti Spyware
Lavasoft Adaware
A-Squared
AVG
Firefox with noscripts plugin
Do all that and you won't get bit either.
"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:au5393hr86o0m3a8a2e6b6p40ctu17kaek@4ax.com...
> Here's what I use and it's all free.
>
> MVPS Hosts File
> ...
I never use a hosts file where it redirects "bad" hostnames to the
localhost (which presumably isn't running a web server). Why? Because
it is far too easy to create placeholder hostnames at a domain that
change at-will so the hosts file will never be up to date. The MVPs
hosts file has around 52 entries just for DoubleClick when I checked a
couple months ago. That's ridiculous. Many of these spam sites are now
accepting ANY hostname at their domain so a hosts list would have to be
infinite in size (okay, not infinite but extremely huge) to encompass
every possible hostname at that domain. Rather than their DNS server
rejecting the lookup on a hostname, they simply return the IP address
for their boundary server host for all DNS requests.
A hosts file demands a fully qualified name (FQDN) for the host, like
www.domain.com or a1bfd.otherdomain.com. You cannot use wildcarding or
just specify the domain to redirect (to localhost) all connects to that
domain. A few firewalls permit wildcarding in the URL filtering. Much
easier to filter on "/*.doubleclick.*/" than on 52 different and unique
entries in a hosts file which has to be periodically updated to account
for Doubleclick adding yet another hostname.
Another problem with a hosts file is that the site to which you connect
but are trying to block their ads from these "bad" site can see that you
blocked those ads. Because the HTML code you get contains the URL to
the advertiser's site, your browser is expected to go retrieve the
content at that URL. The site you visit knows your IP address. The ad
server also knows your IP address *if* you retrieve their content. If
the web site you visit and the ad site don't see that your IP address
accesses both pages within a short interval, like a few seconds, the
visited site doesn't get an acknowledgement from the ad server showing
your IP address visited there. The visited site then refuses to show
you its content because you blocked the ads.
To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in
your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
ones that you left in the box.
"Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote in message
newstWdnV19P4-KKQzbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Gladiator" wrote in message
> news:au5393hr86o0m3a8a2e6b6p40ctu17kaek@4ax.com...
>> Here's what I use and it's all free.
>>
>> MVPS Hosts File
>
>> ...
>
> I never use a hosts file where it redirects "bad" hostnames to the
> localhost (which presumably isn't running a web server). Why? Because it
> is far too easy to create placeholder hostnames at a domain that change
> at-will so the hosts file will never be up to date. The MVPs hosts file
> has around 52 entries just for DoubleClick when I checked a couple months
> ago. That's ridiculous. Many of these spam sites are now accepting ANY
> hostname at their domain so a hosts list would have to be infinite in size
> (okay, not infinite but extremely huge) to encompass every possible
> hostname at that domain. Rather than their DNS server rejecting the
> lookup on a hostname, they simply return the IP address for their boundary
> server host for all DNS requests.
>
> A hosts file demands a fully qualified name (FQDN) for the host, like
> www.domain.com or a1bfd.otherdomain.com. You cannot use wildcarding or
> just specify the domain to redirect (to localhost) all connects to that
> domain. A few firewalls permit wildcarding in the URL filtering. Much
> easier to filter on "/*.doubleclick.*/" than on 52 different and unique
> entries in a hosts file which has to be periodically updated to account
> for Doubleclick adding yet another hostname.
>
> Another problem with a hosts file is that the site to which you connect
> but are trying to block their ads from these "bad" site can see that you
> blocked those ads. Because the HTML code you get contains the URL to the
> advertiser's site, your browser is expected to go retrieve the content at
> that URL. The site you visit knows your IP address. The ad server also
> knows your IP address *if* you retrieve their content. If the web site
> you visit and the ad site don't see that your IP address accesses both
> pages within a short interval, like a few seconds, the visited site
> doesn't get an acknowledgement from the ad server showing your IP address
> visited there. The visited site then refuses to show you its content
> because you blocked the ads.
>
> To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
> everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
> (i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
> seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
> content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
> unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of their
> page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in your
> browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
> placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web site
> that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
> eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page. It
> is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates, opening
> the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you don't like,
> and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the ones that you
> left in the box.
It is possible for them to deny you a view of their site for not visiting
their adsite, but I've never seen it. If you look at sites that use double
click and others, you'll see that those ads arent the only ones on the page.
You'll also often see the unreachable content get a substitute add when the
download fails.
The sites want you to come by hosts file or not. If they didn't you couldn't
get to their site at all without accepting the add content.
cmsix
>
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:05:52 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:
>To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
>everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
>(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
>seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
>content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
>unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
>their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in
>your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
>placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
>site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
>eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
>It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
>opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
>don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
>ones that you left in the box.
It's my computer and I'll block anything I want.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote