IE8 anti-malware protection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill Sanderson
  • Start date Start date
The smartscreen database is being updated continuously by millions of
people.

There's a limit to how much effort the hosts file author can put in, and how
often you download the updates.

OTOH, the hosts file does include ad sites, which the smartscreen database
does not.

If you like the hosts file, I'd keep using it and just add the smartscreen
protection--which is primarily designed for impulse-control protection--you
hit that button--and realize you shouldn't have--but ideally, whatever is
coming down is in the database, and will be stopped.


Randy Knobloch said:
Bill Sanderson wrote:
<http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/20...protection-with-ie8-s-smartscreen-filter.aspx>

What if one is running a HOSTS File, I think I prefer the protection a
"good" HOSTS file
offers over smartscreen filtering.

Comments?
Click to expand...


--
 
Bill said:
The smartscreen database is being updated continuously by millions of
people.
Click to expand...

Was not aware of that, I assume folks are reporting questionable websites,
as it happens, as it were.
There's a limit to how much effort the hosts file author can put in, and how
often you download the updates.
Click to expand...

True, noted, though a good HOSTS file avoids malvertising.
OTOH, the hosts file does include ad sites, which the smartscreen database
does not.
Click to expand...

Most definitely.
If you like the hosts file, I'd keep using it and just add the smartscreen
protection--which is primarily designed for impulse-control protection--you
hit that button--and realize you shouldn't have--but ideally, whatever is
coming down is in the database, and will be stopped.
Click to expand...

That's a fine recommendation, although smartscreen phones-home to MS which I don't like
and I "believe" it does slow the Browser ever-so-slightly.

Thanks for the notes and feedback !
 
Smartscreen does have to check, which may involve a lag. How much of one, I
don't know--I really haven't noticed, but I don't notice most performance
issues.


Randy Knobloch said:
Was not aware of that, I assume folks are reporting questionable websites,
as it happens, as it were.


True, noted, though a good HOSTS file avoids malvertising.


Most definitely.


That's a fine recommendation, although smartscreen phones-home to MS which
I don't like
and I "believe" it does slow the Browser ever-so-slightly.

Thanks for the notes and feedback !
Click to expand...


--
 
i have it enabled and i do not notice any lag
on both vista and my test machine which is a rather slow computer to begin
with
robin
 
what i am wondering is ie8 safer than firefox? does firefox have something
similar to smartscreen surfing?
robin
 
Bill said:
Smartscreen does have to check, which may involve a lag. How much of one, I
don't know--I really haven't noticed, but I don't notice most performance
issues.
Click to expand...

There is a definite Browser load-lag with smartscreen enabled.
Since I'm a performance fanatic, I'll leave it off for now.
 
i am still wondering which one will be safer- firefox or ie8?
which uses less memory
which one is overall better
robin
Bill said:
Smartscreen does have to check, which may involve a lag. How much of one,
I
don't know--I really haven't noticed, but I don't notice most performance
issues.
Click to expand...

There is a definite Browser load-lag with smartscreen enabled.
Since I'm a performance fanatic, I'll leave it off for now.
 
Firefox does have a feature which has some resemblance--one of the comments
to the blog I referenced has some cursory description of it--but I'm not
sure that it is applied at the same points.

Needless to say, the Firefox folks claim they are safer, but I haven't seen
any independent discussion of the competing claims.



robinb said:
what i am wondering is ie8 safer than firefox? does firefox have
something similar to smartscreen surfing?
robin
Bill Sanderson said:
Smartscreen does have to check, which may involve a lag. How much of
one, I don't know--I really haven't noticed, but I don't notice most
performance issues.
Click to expand...


--
Click to expand...
 
I guess we have to wait and see how many hackers attack ie8 and how many
patches MS will do it fix it
robin

Bill Sanderson said:
Firefox does have a feature which has some resemblance--one of the
comments to the blog I referenced has some cursory description of it--but
I'm not sure that it is applied at the same points.

Needless to say, the Firefox folks claim they are safer, but I haven't
seen any independent discussion of the competing claims.
Click to expand...
 
robinb said:
I guess we have to wait and see how many hackers attack ie8 and how many
patches MS will do it fix it
Click to expand...

Since IE is generally the Browser of choice, MS, must be at the ready.
 
and to add to it on the wilders security spywareblaster site someone posted
that if you put ie8 on you need to uninstall spywareblaster, then reinstall
it but do not immunize the restricted sites in ie8 at least for now till
spywareblaster fixes this.

robin
 
or Microsoft fixes it. seems this did not happen in the rc1 version of ie8.
It happened in the final version. So if you want to take the leap and
install it now you can try this work-around.

also if you install ie 8 and it goes wakey you can uninstall it using this
tool at

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957700

Note- to uninstall it you must have sp3 "firs"t on your computer in xp. If
you installed ie7 prior to having sp3 (the same with ie8) you will have to
uninstall the service pack to uninstall ie8
Bummer! eh?

I am hoping Microsoft fixes this issue with spywareblaster and S&D before
they put it into the Windows Updater.

robin
 
robinb said:
I am hoping Microsoft fixes this issue with spywareblaster and S&D before
they put it into the Windows Updater.
Click to expand...

Javacool & Patrick Kolla's Devs need to get with the program, not vice-versa, IMO...
 
Back
Top