Ok, sorry for the poor attempt at humor there. What I really meant to say is that although Comodo’s popups usually block apps/internet access unless/untill allowed, for some reason SpywareBlaster doesn’t give a rip that Comodo is trying to block it. It connects & updates itself no problem - while possibly laughing at the Comodo popup asking whether I want to deny or allow it. (:WAV)
SpywareBlaster is of course a program which I intentionally run & like to update, but it is a little disconcerting seeing it connect & do it’s thing while Comodo is asking me if I would like to allow or deny it, kind of like seeing a leak test have it’s way with your pc.
Has anyone else experienced this with SpywareBlaster or any particular app?
I have used spyware blaster for years and it typically won’t connect, it doesn’t have to. If you bought the full version it will auto update but other than that, you must do so yourself. I can attempt to update with it, deny it and see what happens and get back to you. Also, noticed trouble with your avatar, must be 64X64 max, upload from your folder or desktop, I will keep mine up and if you like it, take it then I can change back.
X- you are correct. I blocked Spyware blaster and it still connected, simply bypassed CPF unless there is something in component monitor to block, which I didn’t find. Another strange thing? I can’t find any instances of Spywareblaster, at all, like it says it’s there but not really doing anything. I almost thought they give a free “DUMMY” app. We think it’s protecting, etc…but it’s not doing anything. loll. I will look into it a bit more, very odd but to your point, if it is actually going, yes it is bypassing CPF. This is worth a looksee.
Modded>> I found another interresting check, Spyware blaster is not running at all, won’t even show when I open it. It’s not shown as a process, nothing. I am beginning to wonder about it. I am not paranoid but I don’t rule anything out and I find it odd that SWB isn’t doing ANYTHING, even when I open it, update , etc…CPF shows blocking the SWB.exe, but that leaves the updater etc…and no sign of it so maybe CPF doesn’t have anything to block? Perhaps SWB isn’t doing what they claim? All there is is one main EXE. Let me know if you get the same. A mention, it has never kicked off my other firewalls either now that I think about it.
I had ended up sizing that webcam shot at 65x65. The forums don’t seem to list the dimensions it’s supposed to be in the upload area so I had to make a best guess to get it to display without distortion. Guess I was pretty close, within 1 pixel - would be handy if it would specify the correct avatar dimensions in the profile section. Thanks for that info & thanks for the avatar update.
One does have to wonder what exactly SpywareBlaster is or is not doing… might be something to check into though, it does appear to either be bypassing Comodo or otherwise displaying a faux connection & update status.
You are welcome. As I tell anyone, you don’t have to use the avatar, I offer to make them quickly if someone doesn’t have one or is having trouble but if you truly don’t want to use it, please don’t hesitate to change it.
Yes this Spyware blaster thing, strange, I monitored my bandwith and still didn’t show a slightest increase when connecting to the supposed update as if it’s not doing “once again” anything. I can’t see a little app like that bypassing CPF but anything is possible. If it wasn’t for the fact that SWB doesn’t TRULY seem to be doing anything at all. ??? I have wondered in the past how well it was working as spyware still got in very quickly even though in protection list. Now I really wonder. So to quote you, things that make you go hmmmm
The avatar is great, really appreciate that, very nice work. (:CLP)
I’ve often wondered if SpywareBlaster does “anything” at all, even before this discovery. Actually I think there are probably many people who wonder that. I continue to use it as an extra since it doesn’t seem to have any negative effects or use any system resources, but I have never tried testing SpywareBlaster specifically to determine definitively whether it is actually providing any anti-spyware protection, I certainly don’t rely on it in anyway. I would be curious to know whether it is actually bypassing Comodo though, & if so I wonder why… & if it’s a fake update then even moreso I would wonder why…
Hmm… the whole idea of SpywareBlaster being a totally fake placebo effect is somewhat amusing. I think I’ve always kind of thought of SpywareBlaster this way even if it really does do whatever it is that it does lol.
No, I didn’t pay thankfully. For years I assumed it was blocking “something” but never thought to see if there were any logs or anything. So how do we know it is? Even when not using it, I didn’t notice an increase in spyware or anything. Hmmmmmm. I mean , there is no solidity to SB, no logs, no signs of life. Perhaps it was written here, using note pad> “please block spyware” . That would be a major program here.
Since this is one of the programs I installed quite a lot, I became a bit curious and tried some things out.
It does make a connecion. If you look on the connectioins-window of CPF while clicking on Update in SpywareBlaster, there’s a very short connection with 188.8.131.52, what belongs to liquidweb, a hosting company. There’s some traffic too.
The strange thing is: I had it in CPF as allowed to this address. I removed it. It went right through CPF.
When I added it to the applications with block all on any address/port, it was blocked and gave a clear message that it was not possible to make a connection.
So it really does something on the internet.
As for the other things: there’s no process or anything like that, because it only installs blockers for Activex, cookies, dialers, etc. You can read a description among other at:
On this site you can read how you can see what’s it protecting against and how it works:
Since this a pretty old article:
If you click in the main screen of SpywareBlaster on protection and then on the tab Internet Explorer, Restricted Sites or Mozilla/Firefox, you can see exactly what it protects against.
I tried out bestbabekiss.com. That site is not in my hosts file, but it is in SpywareBlaster, and Internet Explorer blocked it as being a restricted site.
So I think it’s really working, at least it’s doing something.
Another thing is that it indeed runs right through CPF, unless you explicitly block it.
Edit: Forgot something.
If you click on Enable all protection, there’s a checkmark placed for every item it protects against. If you update (and if there are updates of course), you can see new items are added: they don’t have a checkmark, until you clik again on Enable all protection.
Thanks for the links & explanations. I knew that SpywareBlaster was using these methods of protection, I just have never put it to any kind of test to verify whether it was actually blocking any spyware.
So it would seem that it’s updates are indeed getting through Comodo for some reason, a leak of sorts, probably worth a dev checking into what method it’s using to bypass Comodo.
There seems to be a great deal of misinformation on this forum regarding SpywareBlaster! First, the free version never runs at all unless you open it and update it. When you do this, it makes appropriate registry changes to block ActiveX controls by setting the so-called “kill bits”; to put sites that are to be blocked in IE or Firefox lists of such; and so on. As someone mentioned, there are lists of these available and you can do some tailoring yourself. It is extremely efficient since it almost never requires any cpu cycles and uses only Registry entries in memory. It is, in fact, one of the best protection applications available. It has some features in common with Spybot - Search & Destroy’s mmunization feature which does somewhat the same thing.
On my system, spywareblaster.exe appears in the Application Control list where I allowed it when it needed to update. It is allowed to make outgoing UDP and TCP connections only. The returning updates (if there are any) come back because I asked for them.
I agree completely with you about SpywareBlaster.
But in my Application Monitor it is not even mentioned, and still it does connect to the net and it does download. It really goes right through CPF, without any warning at all. Unless I put it by hand in the Application Monitor and block everything.
So I think Comodo should really look how this is possible, instead of thinking it doesn’t really download or things like that.