Question about Spyware Blaster

[pastywhitegurl]

I saw the notice about the new version being out. 

Was wondering, though....if I have MalwareBytes Pro and Windows Defender operating on my Windows 10  PC, do I really need to keep Spyware Blaster running?    It seems like both programs include real time spyware protection now.  So maybe SWB is redundant?  Or does it do different stuff unique to itself?

[Digerati]

do I really need to keep Spyware Blaster running?

In my opinion, no. I run the same combination (Malwarebytes Premium and Windows Defender) on all my systems. Spywareblaster is not needed. I don't believe running it too would cause problems, in terms of conflicts with Malwarebytes or WD. But it is wasting resources (RAM and CPU clock cycles) for no added value in security.

I am assuming you otherwise keep your computer (Windows and your security programs) fully updated, and you are not "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, download, attachments, and popup you see.

[winchester73]

SpywareBlaster is a solution to a specific problem, namely spyware, adware, dialers, browser hijackers, et al, that infect your computer via ActiveX website content, by disabling the CLSIDs of popular spyware ActiveX controls.

It doesn't drain system resources by running in the background (it is a passive program that doesn't require processor time, RAM, etc), and won't affect browser performance or conflict with other software.  It  is a prevention program not a removal program, it tweaks the restricted sites in the browser security settings.

Additional software is needed to protect you from other types of malware ... SpywareBlaster is not a replacement for antivirus and other dedicated anti-spyware software.

I have it installed on my systems.  YMMV.

[plodr]

I haven't installed the latest version but in the past, SpywareBlaster was never actively running. If you look in Task Manager, it doesn't show as a running process. It passively protects your browsers. In other words, it stops the browser from getting, identified by SpywareBlaster as junk, in the cache.
Me, I like all the protection I can get for my browsers since I spend most of my computing time with a browser open.

[plodr]

I installed the newest version of SpywareBlaster yesterday. This morning I looked at Task Manager and as before there is no active process running with the program. It continues to be passive protection so it doesn't use CPU to protect the browsers.

[Digerati]

I installed the newest version of SpywareBlaster yesterday. This morning I looked at Task Manager and as before there is no active process running with the program. It continues to be passive protection so it doesn't use CPU to protect the browsers.

After doing my homework (which I should have done earlier  :-[ ), you are correct. As noted by FAQ #5, SpywareBlaster is indeed "passive". So other than a little disk space, it is not eating up system resources (CPU clock cycles or RAM). I'm just not buying that my browsers have all these "leaky holes" (FAQ #4) that need plugging or that my real-time anti-malware scanners are leaving those holes unprotected and allowing those [supposedly] unprotected vulnerabilities exposed to the bad guys for their unhindered exploitation.

I am all for a layered approach to security. We should never have all our eggs in one basket. This is why I use Windows Defender and Malwarebytes. But they are NOT my entire defense against malware.

I also keep my operating system fully updated - one of the most critical steps in security we can make. But that's still not all. I also use an active firewall and all my computers are behind a router. Lastly, I avoid being "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, download, attachment and popup I see. That's already a lot of layers.

If one "stops" getting infected after installing SpywareBlaster, then, maybe, there would be some justification for installing it. But frankly, I would look for deficiencies elsewhere - primarily somewhere between the ears of the user.

Does it hurt to install it? No. Is it needed. No.

[pastywhitegurl]

Great discussion!   

So I think that since SB is not using any significant resources, and its only mildly annoying to have to run the database updater periodically, I will continue to use it.

[Pete!]

Great discussion!   

So I think that since SB is not using any significant resources, and its only mildly annoying to have to run the database updater periodically, I will continue to use it.

Since I don't have Internet Explorer, I sometimes wondered why I bothered with the updates. This Version change was the first update in my memory that purports to add anything new for other browsers.