Which anti-spyware softwear?

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:ve4693hc8t7nutvkrco7heuhtsee2bmdap@4ax.com...
> 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.


It's their site so don't ***** when they decide not to let you see any
of it. Now I know why some of the books I get from the library have
torn out pages and polluted with highlighted lines.

[Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007, "Dave {ð¿ð}" <dave@blueyonder--virginmedia_no_address_to_spam.co.uk> wrote:
>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This list is a bit out of date, last checked January 2007, but these
are either completely all freeware, or freeware with commercial upgrade
options.

The main thing is to keep everything on your computer up to date, and
beware of any suspicious links, or any offers to "install" software that
you don't know for sure isn't spy ware, ad ware or virus ware. That
includes suspicious "toolbars." That's why I like the mvps host file so
much, because it prevents bad commercial links like "doubleclick" from
downloading onto your computer:

Free anti virus AVG (version 7.5):
http://free.grisoft.com/doc/5390/lng/us/tpl/v5

Free anti spyware, etc.:
http://www.ccleaner.com
http://www.spybot.info/en/download/
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
http://www.winpatrol.com/download.html
http://www.superantispyware.com/down...NTISPYWAREFREE
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/res/ie-spyad.zip
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip
http://www.funkytoad.com/hoster.htm
http://www.lavasoft.de/software/adaware/
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/resource.htm
http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ie.html

Free news readers:
http://www.40tude.com/dialog/
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

Free news filters:
http://www.nfilter.org/
http://www.arcorhome.de/newshamster/...amster_de.html

Free public news servers:
http://www.newzbot.com/

[Han]

"Dave {ð¿ð}" <dave@blueyonder--virginmedia_no_address_to_spam.co.uk>
wrote in news:K_2ki.20158$p8.15231@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk:

> 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
>
I use SUPERAntispsyware now. Used others before. Generally have had no
problems, except some cookies. Those are very bad if youre paraniod, but,
then, I also walk across Manhattan and work in the VA Hospital <grin>.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Gladiator]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:08:27 GMT, Han <nobody@nospam.not> wrote:


>I use SUPERAntispsyware now. Used others before. Generally have had no
>problems, except some cookies. Those are very bad if youre paraniod, but,
>then, I also walk across Manhattan and work in the VA Hospital <grin>.

How are cookies very bad? A cookie can't do anything to your PC and
they can't even track you across mulitple websites. They can only
track you from within the website they were loaded from. When you see
any anti-spyware software warn you about tracking cookies just let it
delete them but they are nothing to be concerend about as the
anti-spyware software developers would have you believe. A little
paranoia is a good thing but don't let it send you over the edge.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:u963939484jroedojpm616hmvfr59so4fd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:08:27 GMT, Han <nobody@nospam.not> wrote:
>
>
>>I use SUPERAntispsyware now. Used others before. Generally have had
>>no
>>problems, except some cookies. Those are very bad if youre paraniod,
>>but,
>>then, I also walk across Manhattan and work in the VA Hospital <grin>.
>
> How are cookies very bad? A cookie can't do anything to your PC and
> they can't even track you across mulitple websites. They can only
> track you from within the website they were loaded from. When you see
> any anti-spyware software warn you about tracking cookies just let it
> delete them but they are nothing to be concerend about as the
> anti-spyware software developers would have you believe. A little
> paranoia is a good thing but don't let it send you over the edge.


Yet these same folks that are paranoid about tracking cookies forget
that clicking on all those links to navigate to different pages means
the source site can add info to the URL that the target site can use for
tracking, and of course the user isn't changing their IP address during
that navigation.

The smartest approach to cookies is to whitelist them. You keep a
whitelist of good cookie sites and all the rest are deleted (not
blocked) when you exit the browser. Block 3rd party cookies (those
where the source site writes a cookie that it can't use but has another
domain specified within the cookie so that other domain can read that
cookie and see it was written by the source site). After that, all
non-whitelisted cookies get forced to be per-session cookies which get
purged when the browser exits. I don't recommend blocking cookies if
whitelisting is used because too many sites need them for proper
operation of that site.

There are plenty of cookie managers that include whitelisting, some of
which are free. I happen to get cookie whitelisting in my popup blocker
(PopUpCop, not free).

[Gladiator]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:42:25 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:


>
>Yet these same folks that are paranoid about tracking cookies forget
>that clicking on all those links to navigate to different pages means
>the source site can add info to the URL that the target site can use for
>tracking, and of course the user isn't changing their IP address during
>that navigation.
>
>The smartest approach to cookies is to whitelist them. You keep a
>whitelist of good cookie sites and all the rest are deleted (not
>blocked) when you exit the browser. Block 3rd party cookies (those
>where the source site writes a cookie that it can't use but has another
>domain specified within the cookie so that other domain can read that
>cookie and see it was written by the source site). After that, all
>non-whitelisted cookies get forced to be per-session cookies which get
>purged when the browser exits. I don't recommend blocking cookies if
>whitelisting is used because too many sites need them for proper
>operation of that site.
>
>There are plenty of cookie managers that include whitelisting, some of
>which are free. I happen to get cookie whitelisting in my popup blocker
>(PopUpCop, not free).

If your that worried about it then just go through a free proxy
server. Myself, I only use those to go to web forums I get banned
from.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
newsj4693hg0upao8o17k4u2iicbuqmqd2p58@4ax.com...
>
> "Vanguard" wrote:
>>
>>The smartest approach to cookies is to whitelist them.
>
> If your that worried about it then just go through a free proxy
> server.

So I'm supposed to trust an unknown operator that runs a proxy server
hoping that they won't track me. I could chain the proxies hoping that
they aren't in collusion with each other. And, of course, I definitely
want to impact connection reliability and reduce speed along with losing
use of some protocols, like HTTPS. Last I remember, cookies are saved
on my host, not on the proxy. I'm not remote desktoping to their proxy
to run the browser from there. Javascript works quite nicely, if
enabled, to report your IP address.

I don't have to worry about cookies. I manage them rather than let them
clutter, and I only have to manage just a few for the domains that I
whitelist.

> Myself, I only use those to go to web forums I get banned
> from.

Which means that forums should blacklist the public proxies. There are
blacklists for those. You've been lucky so far that the forums don't
use them.

[Han]

Gladiator <no@email.invalid> wrote in
news:u963939484jroedojpm616hmvfr59so4fd@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:08:27 GMT, Han <nobody@nospam.not> wrote:
>
>
>>I use SUPERAntispsyware now. Used others before. Generally have had
>>no problems, except some cookies. Those are very bad if youre
>>paraniod, but, then, I also walk across Manhattan and work in the VA
>>Hospital <grin>.
>
> How are cookies very bad?


Sorry, I had forgotten to show that "SARCASM" was turned on. I agree
completely.

> A cookie can't do anything to your PC and
> they can't even track you across mulitple websites. They can only
> track you from within the website they were loaded from. When you see
> any anti-spyware software warn you about tracking cookies just let it
> delete them but they are nothing to be concerend about as the
> anti-spyware software developers would have you believe. A little
> paranoia is a good thing but don't let it send you over the edge.



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Gladiator]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:42:36 GMT, Han <nobody@nospam.not> wrote:


>Sorry, I had forgotten to show that "SARCASM" was turned on. I agree
>completely.

Ah, my humor detector was in off mode. Sorry.

[Vanguard]

"Dave" wrote in message
news:K_2ki.20158$p8.15231@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> 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?


How much have you allocated to a budget to purchase anti-malware
products? You did not specify if all solutions must be free or if some
or all can be commercialware.

If you're willing to pay for the protection, take a look at PrevX (used
to have a free "research" version but no longer). If you're looking for
freebies only:

- Grisoft's AVG: anti-virus, free.
- Grisoft's anti-rootkit: free. I also have the rootkit revealer from
SysInternals (bought by Microsoft).
- ewido used to be free but not after Grisoft bought them. After the
30-day trial, it cripples itself into the free version; however, if the
free version merely eliminates the on-access background scanner and
degrades the product into a manual (on-demand) scanner, it's still of
value (I wouldn't want yet another on-access scanner, anyway).
- Windows Defender. It's major defect is that it polls for changes
(i.e., it is reactive and often late). It reports a change after the
process made it so what it does is an undo. The same deficiency exists
with WinPatrol. Prevx is proactive in that it forces a pend on an
unauthorized change until you allow it or allowed it before.
- DiamondCS ProcessGuard. Programs can only run if they can get into
real memory, and this regulates what can run. Even useful to restrict
non-malware, like Microsoft's WGA that runs on Windows startup (although
you still get stuck with their AX control for WGA at Windows Update).
- VMware Server or Virtual PC (VPC). Proves a virtual machine where you
can browse or trial apps without them touching your host OS. VMware is
better, especially since it gives you snapshots to revert the VM back to
a prior known base state.
- Sandboxie. Runs a local VM under the host OS so is less secure than
VMware or VPC but still affords pretty good protections, like wiping AX
controls downloading during a browser session. Can be used to sandbox
browsers or any other app. After 30-day trial, product remains fully
functional but issues ***** reminders to prod you into buying it.
- Commodo (firewall only). Would've probably stayed with Sygate except
Symantec killed it (but I still do have a copy of Sygate Pro around).
- Ad-Aware. Paid version includes their Ad-watch on-access background
scanner. I wouldn't want yet another scanner, anyway, so no loss to me
that the free version doesn't have it. I use this only as an on-demand
scanner.
- Spybot S&D. Don't bother with their TeaTimer which is a poor
imitation of an IPS (intrustion protection system). Prevx is far better
(but not free). I use Spybot S&D only as an on-demand scanner.
- SpywareBlaster. I use it only for the ActiveX killbits added to the
registry for known malware and the site block list. I don't bother with
blocking cookies since I use a cookie manager to whitelist which ones
that I'll keep and all others are forced to be per-session cookies (they
get deleted upon exiting the browser). This is an on-demand program
only; i.e., there is nothing resident that continues to run so
periodically you have to manually run it.

All of the above is my personal opinion based on my limited experience
as a signle user of these products. While there are sites for
comparison of anti-virus products, like http://www.av-comparatives.org/,
I haven't found a similar technically investigative site regarding other
anti-malware products. Although I use all of the above, I don't have
them all running at the same time. I actually want to use my computer,
not wade through all the security on it. Protection requires a layered
approach. Just don't get so paranoid that you cripple your hardware by
running an excessive number of anti-malware products.