SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey - Mozilla

This is a discussion on SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey - Mozilla ; I'm troubleshooting a cable modem problem. Win XP he SP2 with all the current updates. My connection speed slows to a crawl and rebooting the computer fixes the problem. I've tried a variety of solutions to no avail. As part ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

  1. SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

    I'm troubleshooting a cable modem problem. Win XP he SP2 with all the
    current updates. My connection speed slows to a crawl and rebooting the
    computer fixes the problem. I've tried a variety of solutions to no avail.

    As part of my troubleshooting, I have disable SpywareBlaster's
    protection. Since the cable modem problem is very intermittent and it
    may take two weeks to see the results of my testing, I thought I would
    ask if anyone in this newsgroup is using SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey.

    SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox so it should also
    protect SeaMonkey?

    --
    JD..

  2. Re: SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

    JD wrote:
    >[...]cable modem problem[...]rebooting[...]fixes the problem[...]
    >As part of my troubleshooting,
    >I have disable SpywareBlaster's protection.{...]
    >SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox
    >so it should also protect SeaMonkey?


    Others may disagree,
    but I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...talled+ActiveX
    If you don't have the ActiveX plug-in for Gecko installed
    (and really, WHY WOULD YOU?)
    I don't see that this app does anything more
    than consume cycles and RAM.
    For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.

    The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
    I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.


  3. Re: SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

    JeffM wrote:
    > JD wrote:
    >> [...]cable modem problem[...]rebooting[...]fixes the problem[...]
    >> As part of my troubleshooting,
    >> I have disable SpywareBlaster's protection.{...]
    >> SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox
    >> so it should also protect SeaMonkey?

    >
    > Others may disagree,
    > but I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
    > http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...talled+ActiveX
    > If you don't have the ActiveX plug-in for Gecko installed
    > (and really, WHY WOULD YOU?)
    > I don't see that this app does anything more
    > than consume cycles and RAM.
    > For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
    >
    > The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
    > I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
    >


    I didn't know there was an ActiveX plugin for Gecko and I certainly
    wouldn't want to have it installed! Didn't really think about SeaMonkey
    not needing the SB protection but it doesn't, does it?

    Thanks!

    --
    JD..

  4. Re: SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

    JeffM wrote:
    > JD wrote:
    >> [...]cable modem problem[...]rebooting[...]fixes the problem[...]
    >> As part of my troubleshooting,
    >> I have disable SpywareBlaster's protection.{...]
    >> SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox
    >> so it should also protect SeaMonkey?

    >
    > Others may disagree,
    > but I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
    > http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...talled+ActiveX
    > If you don't have the ActiveX plug-in for Gecko installed
    > (and really, WHY WOULD YOU?)
    > I don't see that this app does anything more
    > than consume cycles and RAM.
    > For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
    >
    > The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
    > I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
    >


    Maybe I should have looked at SpywareBlaster a little closer?

    It does set protection in IE for ActiveX but it doesn't do that for
    Mozilla/Firefox. All it does for M/F is set protection from a large
    number of cookies. It also sets protection for Restricted Sites but only
    for IE. Interesting?

    --
    JD..

  5. Re: SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

    JeffM wrote:
    >>I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
    >>http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...talled+ActiveX
    >>[...]For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
    >>

    JD wrote:
    >It does set protection in IE for ActiveX
    >but it doesn't do that for Mozilla/Firefox.
    >

    Not being the slightest bit interested in ActiveX
    (except for AVOIDING it),
    I didn't investigate that aspect of the app deeply.
    My knowledge is that it makes Registry tweaks,
    so the logic does follow.

    >>The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
    >>I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
    >>

    >All it does for M/F is set protection from a large number of cookies.
    >

    Which, as I noted, you can do without further bloat.
    As I said:
    >>For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.


    >It also sets protection for Restricted Sites but only for IE.
    >

    Yup. All that crap is IN THE REGISTRY **for IE**.
    I have noted this before elsewhere.
    Again: A much over-hyped app.

    >Interesting?
    >

    Re-affirms my (incomplete) knowledge and confirms my intuitions.

    If you are worried about rogue sites,
    the Microsoft Most Valuable Professions
    have a HOSTS file you should use.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=HOSTS.File

    Without ActiveX and Active Scripting,
    rogue sites are relatively impotent.
    For Gecko, NoScripts (for JavaScript)
    handles the last remaining bump in the road.

    If you're still paranoid:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=McAfe...dvisor+plug-in


  6. Re: SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

    JeffM wrote:
    > JeffM wrote:
    >>> I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
    >>> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...talled+ActiveX
    >>> [...]For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
    >>>

    > JD wrote:
    >> It does set protection in IE for ActiveX
    >> but it doesn't do that for Mozilla/Firefox.
    >>

    > Not being the slightest bit interested in ActiveX
    > (except for AVOIDING it),
    > I didn't investigate that aspect of the app deeply.
    > My knowledge is that it makes Registry tweaks,
    > so the logic does follow.
    >
    >>> The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
    >>> I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
    >>>

    >> All it does for M/F is set protection from a large number of cookies.
    >>

    > Which, as I noted, you can do without further bloat.
    > As I said:
    >>> For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.

    >
    >> It also sets protection for Restricted Sites but only for IE.
    >>

    > Yup. All that crap is IN THE REGISTRY **for IE**.
    > I have noted this before elsewhere.
    > Again: A much over-hyped app.
    >
    >> Interesting?
    >>

    > Re-affirms my (incomplete) knowledge and confirms my intuitions.
    >
    > If you are worried about rogue sites,
    > the Microsoft Most Valuable Professions
    > have a HOSTS file you should use.
    > http://www.google.com/search?q=HOSTS.File
    >
    > Without ActiveX and Active Scripting,
    > rogue sites are relatively impotent.
    > For Gecko, NoScripts (for JavaScript)
    > handles the last remaining bump in the road.
    >
    > If you're still paranoid:
    > http://www.google.com/search?q=McAfe...dvisor+plug-in
    >


    I use the mvps hosts file. I use the PrefBar which has the ability to
    disable JavaScript. I don't surf the web enough to use the McAfee Site
    Advisor plug-in.

    Thanks for your input!

    --
    JD..

+ Reply to Thread