spyware Doctor and spybot search and destroy

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by huck, Apr 23, 2005.

  1. huck

    huck Guest

    Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
    destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
     
    huck, Apr 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. huck

    John Holmes Guest

    huck asked in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
    > destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
    >
    >
    >


    May a handful of homophobic democrats perform unnatural acts in your beer.


    --

    Your mother was a loathsome punk who made babies on a small island in the
    Outer Hebrides.

    - John Holmes -
     
    John Holmes, Apr 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. huck

    Old Gringo Guest

    huck wrote:
    > Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
    > destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
    >
    >

    You can have as many as you like. Keep them up to date and run them
    frequently depending on your surfing habits, or you can in stall
    FireFox and make it your default browser learn how to use it and you
    don't need any of them. Good Luck in what ever you decide.

    --
    Old Gringo George
    Magic Weaver Of Life
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>
     
    Old Gringo, Apr 23, 2005
    #3
  4. huck

    Sultan Guest

    "huck" <> wrote in news:pgrae.69119$lz2.49741
    @fed1read07:

    > Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot

    search and
    > destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
    >
    >


    Neither one is worth running. Sure Spybot ruled a year ago - today it
    is a waste of diskspace. Sure it's freeware - but in this case you
    get what you pay for.
    The only two programs I would recommend using is SpySweeper from
    webroot.com and CounterSpy from sunbelt software. Both have free
    trials. Run them against your current programs and you'll see they
    detect far more than your current apps. The proof is in the pudding
    as my Mum always said.

    Another poster recommended Firefox as a safer alternative when
    browsing - that is both true and false. Firefox has security
    vulnerablities as well - 8 found just last week. Sadly no patch for
    Firefox - you have to download the whole new build and install to
    "patch" - a huge waste of bandwidth.

    If your really looking for a better browser - try Maxthon - it uses
    the IE engine but has more security built in - you still need to
    patch it occasionally as well - as with any software.

    I have all three browsers on both my home and work pc's - and I
    prefer Maxthon over the other two. All I am really trying to say is
    don't think just because you have Firefox and use it - and don't ever
    update it - that you are safe. Be careful in what kind of sites you
    visit and run regular virus and spyware scans.


    --

    Sultan
     
    Sultan, Apr 23, 2005
    #4
  5. huck

    Ionizer Guest

    "Old Gringo" <> wrote in message
    news:tjsae.1361$...
    > You can have as many as you like. Keep them up to date and run them
    > frequently depending on your surfing habits, or you can in stall FireFox
    > and make it your default browser learn how to use it and you don't need
    > any of them.


    Not so, George. Firefox isn't perfect, and there are many other ways to
    end up with spyware and adware on your system than just via your browser.

    Regards,
    Ian.
     
    Ionizer, Apr 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Sultan wrote:

    <snip>
    > Another poster recommended Firefox as a safer alternative when
    > browsing - that is both true and false. Firefox has security
    > vulnerablities as well - 8 found just last week. Sadly no patch for
    > Firefox - you have to download the whole new build and install to
    > "patch" - a huge waste of bandwidth.

    <snip>

    Entire download, 4.7MB. Now, how big are security patches from MS?
    For more reading: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6488
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Apr 23, 2005
    #6
  7. huck

    °Mike° Guest

    There is no reason not to have both installed, but try to stay
    away from having multiple *resident* scanners, such as BHOs,
    which SpyBot S&D has -- I'm not sure about Spyware Doctor.

    In <Pgrae.69119$lz2.49741@fed1read07>,
    huck took 4 lines to utter:

    >Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
    >destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
    >


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Apr 23, 2005
    #7
  8. huck

    Sultan Guest

    Rôgêr <> wrote in news:EsadnTMdsP2H8_ffRVn-
    :

    > Sultan wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >> Another poster recommended Firefox as a safer alternative when
    >> browsing - that is both true and false. Firefox has security
    >> vulnerablities as well - 8 found just last week. Sadly no patch

    for
    >> Firefox - you have to download the whole new build and install to
    >> "patch" - a huge waste of bandwidth.

    > <snip>
    >
    > Entire download, 4.7MB. Now, how big are security patches from MS?
    > For more reading: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=

    6488
    >


    Not 4.7 MB for any IE patch. For more reading:
    http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=
    160900911

    --

    Sultan
     
    Sultan, Apr 23, 2005
    #8
  9. huck

    Old Gringo Guest

    Ionizer wrote:
    > "Old Gringo" <> wrote in message
    > news:tjsae.1361$...
    >
    >>You can have as many as you like. Keep them up to date and run them
    >>frequently depending on your surfing habits, or you can in stall FireFox
    >>and make it your default browser learn how to use it and you don't need
    >>any of them.

    >
    >
    > Not so, George. Firefox isn't perfect, and there are many other ways to
    > end up with spyware and adware on your system than just via your browser.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Ian.
    >
    >

    No one said it was perfect and don't give me this not so shit as I
    don't want to hear it. Get the **** off my ass and stay off.

    --
    Old Gringo George
    Magic Weaver Of Life
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>
     
    Old Gringo, Apr 23, 2005
    #9
  10. huck

    Sultan Guest

    Rôgêr <> wrote in news:EsadnTMdsP2H8_ffRVn-
    :

    > http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6488


    Hey Roger - thanks cause one of the feedback posters makes even
    better points:
    #8 Re: Let's not be idiots
    by niner

    Saturday April 23rd, 2005 10:23 AM

    Reply to this message

    It's exactly this attitude that is the problem with Firefox' security
    and the problem with it's marketing.

    For those of you that know nothing except for the pretty marketing
    speech: even Mozilla had security bugs that were known for _years_
    and were not fixed. There's no magic here. Firefox is not more secure
    "by nature". Security bugs get only fixed if there's some developer
    interested in the problem and knows how to fix it. Security problems
    don't get fixed by just saying that Firefox is secure or all by
    themselves.

    Mozilla.org (now the Mozilla foundation) had their bad times, too.
    Security was not and is not always the absolute top priority in
    development. Thankfully, the situation got better, but it has never
    been perfect and it may change anytime. If you really want a secure
    browser and want, that it stays so, you'll have to become one of
    those white hats you talk about and get the bugs fixed by yourself.
    And oh, of course you'll have to build your own Firefox with these
    security patches applied. Because as we've seen with Firefox 1.03,
    Mozilla Foundation can not put out the releases as quickly because of
    compatibility concerns, handling of the distribution system, etc.
    which increases your vulnerable time.



    --

    Sultan
     
    Sultan, Apr 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Sultan wrote:
    > Rôgêr <> wrote in news:EsadnTMdsP2H8_ffRVn-
    > :
    >
    >
    >>http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6488

    >
    >
    > Hey Roger - thanks cause one of the feedback posters makes even
    > better points:

    <snip>

    Yep, good points. and Dizzle wrote:

    --- begin quote ---
    How many of you were effected by the security holes? How many got a
    virus? spyware? lost sensitive data? had to reinstall?

    Let's use our intelligence to combat these false claims, of course their
    will always be bugs in software, therefore some of those bugs will be
    security related. With IE you find out after their is an exploit, with
    Firefox, white hats review the code and release a security report about
    a piece of the code that has a bug, before hackers bother to exploit it
    mozilla has a fix in place. Hacker's probably don't bother spending time
    writing a difficult exploit because Mozilla has set the expectation that
    the bugfix will be out in a week, max two.

    If you don't honestly feel Firefox is safe, be my guest browse strange
    sites with IE
    --- end quote ---

    I'm not exactly adamantly for Firefox and I don't feel strongly enough
    to pound this argument into the ground. I was mostly responding to your
    position that a 4.7 meg download was a "huge waste of bandwidth". Shit,
    after installing SP2 on a couple of machines, I immediately started
    leaving CDs with it all over the shop and a few at the house in case I
    bring a customer's laptop home to work on.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Apr 24, 2005
    #11
  12. huck

    Plato Guest

    huck wrote:
    >
    > Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
    > destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=


    Sure





    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Apr 24, 2005
    #12
  13. huck

    Sultan Guest

    Rôgêr <> wrote in news:IaOdnSJ5YY9qv_bfRVn-
    :

    <snip>
    >
    > I'm not exactly adamantly for Firefox and I don't feel strongly

    enough
    > to pound this argument into the ground. I was mostly responding to

    your
    > position that a 4.7 meg download was a "huge waste of bandwidth".

    Shit,
    > after installing SP2 on a couple of machines, I immediately started
    > leaving CDs with it all over the shop and a few at the house in

    case I
    > bring a customer's laptop home to work on.


    Point taken - I just wish Firefox would incorporate smaller patches
    instead - and have it handled through the browser - have you tried
    Maxthon yet? They let you know when a patch is released and it is
    updated right from your browser - no going out and downloading
    manually and running an install- not explaining it the best I know -
    just think they found a great way to keep their users patched.

    --
    Sultan
     
    Sultan, Apr 24, 2005
    #13
  14. huck

    Ionizer Guest

    "Old Gringo" <> wrote in message
    news:CCvae.1387$...
    > No one said it was perfect and don't give me this not so shit as I
    > don't want to hear it. Get the **** off my ass and stay off.


    What sort of visions are you having about me and your ass?

    --
    Ian.
     
    Ionizer, Apr 24, 2005
    #14
  15. huck

    Keme Guest

    Sultan wrote:
    > "huck" <> wrote in news:pgrae.69119$lz2.49741
    > @fed1read07:
    >
    >
    >>Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot

    >
    > search and
    >
    >>destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Neither one is worth running. Sure Spybot ruled a year ago - today it
    > is a waste of diskspace. Sure it's freeware - but in this case you
    > get what you pay for.
    > The only two programs I would recommend using is SpySweeper from
    > webroot.com and CounterSpy from sunbelt software. Both have free
    > trials. Run them against your current programs and you'll see they
    > detect far more than your current apps. The proof is in the pudding
    > as my Mum always said.

    [...]

    If that's a fact, she fixed a perfectly good proverb (if it ain't broke,
    don't fix it!), or perhaps you didn't listen carefully when your mother
    spoke...

    The proper one would be: 'The proof of the pudding (as in "anti spyware
    tool pudding") is in the eating (which here would be "using the
    tool").', but that's not applicable here (see below).

    I use Spybot S&D and AdAware as my regular protection, and I have never
    been bothered by hijacks or intrusive advertising. When testing other
    software (like the ones recommended by the Sultan), I never get any
    worse than a few tracking cookies, which I regard a minor threat. With
    other software my computer might be cleaner, but I don't need that. I'm
    "safe enough", which should be the objective for everyone.

    The many users of Spybot S&D and AdAware comes from the fact that they
    are free for use for an unlimited time and with small limitations on
    functionality (none on Spybot S&D), and they do the job reasonably well.
    They are not the "best" tools in every respect. So the "eating" is not
    "proof of the pudding" here.

    The "proof is in the pudding" statement fails even worse, though. Many
    tools will present you with a high number of detections, but in many
    cases they are what's known as "false positives", designed to lure you
    into thinking these tools are better than the last one you used. Note
    however that the recommended tools do not fall in this category as far
    as I can see. SpySweeper and CounterSpy seem to be plain vanilla.

    For the best advice, see http://www.spywarewarrior.com. Browse the web
    pages and forums. Follow the links and the guidelines given, and you
    should be "safe enough".
     
    Keme, Apr 25, 2005
    #15
  16. huck

    Mara Guest

    On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:39:34 +0200, Keme <> wrote:

    <snip>
    >The "proof is in the pudding" statement fails even worse, though. Many
    >tools will present you with a high number of detections, but in many
    >cases they are what's known as "false positives", designed to lure you
    >into thinking these tools are better than the last one you used. Note
    >however that the recommended tools do not fall in this category as far
    >as I can see. SpySweeper and CounterSpy seem to be plain vanilla.


    To add to this:

    CounterSpy comes from a well-known spammer. Would you trust a program knowing
    that?

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L10E553FA

    "I wouldn't. Not in a million years."


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Apr 25, 2005
    #16
  17. huck

    Sultan Guest

    Keme <> wrote in
    news::

    > Sultan wrote:
    >
    > If that's a fact, she fixed a perfectly good proverb (if it ain't

    broke,
    > don't fix it!), or perhaps you didn't listen carefully when your

    mother
    > spoke...


    > The proper one would be: 'The proof of the pudding (as in "anti

    spyware
    > tool pudding") is in the eating (which here would be "using the
    > tool").', but that's not applicable here (see below).


    My Mum always said don't type with your mouth full - have no idea who
    came up with those proverbs but I wasn't quoting them either now was
    I?

    >
    > I use Spybot S&D and AdAware as my regular protection, and I have

    never
    > been bothered by hijacks or intrusive advertising.


    Well aren't you the lucky little booger?

    When testing other
    > software (like the ones recommended by the Sultan), I never get any
    > worse than a few tracking cookies, which I regard a minor threat.

    With
    > other software my computer might be cleaner, but I don't need that.


    Well goody for you - I'm saying for a pc that is infested with
    malware your "free" tools don't hold a candle to SpySweeper or
    CounterSpy.

    I'm
    > "safe enough", which should be the objective for everyone.


    When did the conversation go into your sexual habits?


    >
    > The many users of Spybot S&D and AdAware comes from the fact that

    they
    > are free for use for an unlimited time and with small limitations

    on
    > functionality (none on Spybot S&D), and they do the job reasonably

    well.

    Reasonably well? Who the hell wants reasonable? I want them to do the
    job exceptionally well - and the two tools I recommend do so.

    > They are not the "best" tools in every respect. So the "eating" is

    not
    > "proof of the pudding" here.


    There you go again misquoting me.

    >
    > The "proof is in the pudding" statement fails even worse,


    Yes - so why do you keep misquoting me?

    though. Many
    > tools will present you with a high number of detections, but in

    many
    > cases they are what's known as "false positives", designed to lure

    you
    > into thinking these tools are better than the last one you used.


    Yes - I'm sure many tools do - in fact some other "free" tools do
    nothing more than install trojans or delete critical Windows files
    causing a big mess. Check out Spywarewarrior.com for more info.

    Note
    > however that the recommended tools do not fall in this category as

    far
    > as I can see. SpySweeper and CounterSpy seem to be plain vanilla.


    Are you hungry? Is that it? G. All this talk of food...
    >
    > For the best advice, see http://www.spywarewarrior.com. Browse the

    web
    > pages and forums. Follow the links and the guidelines given, and

    you
    > should be "safe enough".


    Oh you know of spywarewarrior but fail to comprehend? Get a Snickers.
    Safe enough - bah. No wonder we have half of all pc's on the Internet
    running with this crap - people like you telling everyone they are
    "safe" enough while their pc's are running as Zombies.



    --

    Sultan
     
    Sultan, Apr 26, 2005
    #17
  18. huck

    Sultan Guest

    Mara <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:39:34 +0200, Keme

    <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >>The "proof is in the pudding" statement fails even worse, though.

    Many
    >>tools will present you with a high number of detections, but in

    many
    >>cases they are what's known as "false positives", designed to lure

    you
    >>into thinking these tools are better than the last one you used.

    Note
    >>however that the recommended tools do not fall in this category as

    far
    >>as I can see. SpySweeper and CounterSpy seem to be plain vanilla.

    >
    > To add to this:
    >
    > CounterSpy comes from a well-known spammer. Would you trust a

    program
    > knowing that?
    >
    > http://makeashorterlink.com/?L10E553FA
    >
    > "I wouldn't. Not in a million years."
    >
    >



    Thanks Mara- I had no idea they (sunbelt) were considered spammers by
    so many. Sad cause they do have some good software - good
    software/Spam Spam/goodsoftware arrrghhh. Ok you win.
    --

    Sultan
    not afraid to admit a boo boo or to change his mind when presented
    with new information.
     
    Sultan, Apr 26, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. joevan

    Spybot search and destroy

    joevan, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    695
  2. joevan

    spybot search and destroy update

    joevan, Aug 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    480
    joevan
    Aug 16, 2004
  3. Emrys Davies

    Spybot-Search & Destroy and Adaware SE Personal

    Emrys Davies, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,474
    Boris Yankov
    Sep 23, 2004
  4. joe
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,475
  5. Old Gringo

    Spybot Search and Destroy. Update

    Old Gringo, Jun 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    844
    Old Gringo
    Jun 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page