Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Spybot S & D 1.4 Released

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
June 1, 2005 2:37:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Info:

http://safer-networking.org/en/news/2005-05-31.html

I was only able to connect to the Beta News mirror for the download.

It's recommended that you uninstall the previous version. See the
following instructions for uninstalling and reinstalling:

http://forums.net-integration.net/index.php?showtopic=3...

Everything appears to be okay here with the new release.

More about : spybot released

Anonymous
June 1, 2005 10:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

TomV <t@nospam.net> wrote:

> Info:
>
> http://safer-networking.org/en/news/2005-05-31.html
>
> I was only able to connect to the Beta News mirror for the download.

Same here ten minutes ago.

> It's recommended that you uninstall the previous version. See the
> following instructions for uninstalling and reinstalling:
>
> http://forums.net-integration.net/index.php?showtopic=3...
>
> Everything appears to be okay here with the new release.

Have yet to fully deploy so cannot comment as yet.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com
June 1, 2005 11:02:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Cheers, Tom. This appears to be the week for new Anti-Spyware versions!


Shane



"TomV" <t@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o $5rXCtZFHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Info:
>
> http://safer-networking.org/en/news/2005-05-31.html
>
> I was only able to connect to the Beta News mirror for the download.
>
> It's recommended that you uninstall the previous version. See the
> following instructions for uninstalling and reinstalling:
>
> http://forums.net-integration.net/index.php?showtopic=3...
>
> Everything appears to be okay here with the new release.
Related resources
June 1, 2005 11:02:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane,

I was thinking the same. Patrick Kolla and his group have been working
on this new release for some time. Their efforts seem to have been
worth the wait, and their hard work is much appreciated.

Cheers,
Tom

Shane wrote:
> Cheers, Tom. This appears to be the week for new Anti-Spyware versions!
>
>
> Shane
>
June 2, 2005 5:03:12 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23WTDSNtZFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> TomV <t@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > Info:
> >
> > http://safer-networking.org/en/news/2005-05-31.html
> >
> > I was only able to connect to the Beta News mirror for the download.
>
> Same here ten minutes ago.

I'm downloading now (for the other machine) from the See-cure.de mirror -
though it took an awful long time for the download to start!

In fact it's so appallingly slow I'm going to cancel and download fron the
Beta News mirror again! Yes, it's coming down about 15x faster from the Beta
News mirror!

>
> > It's recommended that you uninstall the previous version. See the
> > following instructions for uninstalling and reinstalling:
> >
> > http://forums.net-integration.net/index.php?showtopic=3...
> >
> > Everything appears to be okay here with the new release.
>
> Have yet to fully deploy so cannot comment as yet.

It does seem to download some pretty old updates straight out of the box.
Minor detail.

On at least two of the three installations I've already done, the updates
mirror was See-cure.de, so nothing seemed to happen for a very long time.
Ctrl-Alt-Del'd it, then restarted and the mirror was now RootBoxen (on XP)
or Safer Networking #1 Europe (on ME, 98se and ME again) and the updates
came down no problem.

With the updates installed, we're back to, every time we open the Immunize
window - though actually there's an increase of 1, so the glass-half-full
perspective has us in profit! - "1992 bad products already blocked, 3
additional protections possible. Please immunize." Over and over and over.
No doubt they'll be dealing with this. It doesn't happen in XP.


Shane
June 2, 2005 5:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:

> I'm downloading now (for the other machine) from the See-cure.de mirror -
> though it took an awful long time for the download to start!
>
> In fact it's so appallingly slow I'm going to cancel and download fron the
> Beta News mirror again! Yes, it's coming down about 15x faster from the Beta
> News mirror!

Majorgeeks has the download now also.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/SpyBot-Search_&_Destroy_d2471...

> It does seem to download some pretty old updates straight out of the box.
> Minor detail.

Yep, the May 13 detection rules were installed.

>
> On at least two of the three installations I've already done, the updates
> mirror was See-cure.de, so nothing seemed to happen for a very long time.
> Ctrl-Alt-Del'd it, then restarted and the mirror was now RootBoxen (on XP)
> or Safer Networking #1 Europe (on ME, 98se and ME again) and the updates
> came down no problem.

I generally use Rootboxen or Safer Networking also, and as you indicate
there was no problem.

>
> With the updates installed, we're back to, every time we open the Immunize
> window - though actually there's an increase of 1, so the glass-half-full
> perspective has us in profit! - "1992 bad products already blocked, 3
> additional protections possible. Please immunize." Over and over and over.
> No doubt they'll be dealing with this. It doesn't happen in XP.

I'm seeing the same with the immunize function on Win ME. XP appears to
be okay.

>
> Shane

Cheers,
Tom
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:48:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I too had trouble with the see-cure sites. On a cable connection, was
trending over an hour to download so went to the Beta News site and it
took less than a minute.
I'm experiencing the same problem with IMMUNIZE on my Windows Me
laptop. It indicates 1992 blocked with an additional 3 available and
even though I click to Immunize, it keeps showing 3 available.
Strangely on my Win 98 SE box IMMUNIZE shows "3133 bad products are
now blocked" with no indication of additional bad products.

Does this make any sense at all? Are the so called bad products
dependent upon the O/S ?

Dan

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uANq9ZwZFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
> news:%23WTDSNtZFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > TomV <t@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Info:
> > >
> > > http://safer-networking.org/en/news/2005-05-31.html
> > >
> > > I was only able to connect to the Beta News mirror for the
download.
> >
> > Same here ten minutes ago.
>
> I'm downloading now (for the other machine) from the See-cure.de
mirror -
> though it took an awful long time for the download to start!
>
> In fact it's so appallingly slow I'm going to cancel and download
fron the
> Beta News mirror again! Yes, it's coming down about 15x faster from
the Beta
> News mirror!
>
> >
> > > It's recommended that you uninstall the previous version. See
the
> > > following instructions for uninstalling and reinstalling:
> > >
> > > http://forums.net-integration.net/index.php?showtopic=3...
> > >
> > > Everything appears to be okay here with the new release.
> >
> > Have yet to fully deploy so cannot comment as yet.
>
> It does seem to download some pretty old updates straight out of the
box.
> Minor detail.
>
> On at least two of the three installations I've already done, the
updates
> mirror was See-cure.de, so nothing seemed to happen for a very long
time.
> Ctrl-Alt-Del'd it, then restarted and the mirror was now RootBoxen
(on XP)
> or Safer Networking #1 Europe (on ME, 98se and ME again) and the
updates
> came down no problem.
>
> With the updates installed, we're back to, every time we open the
Immunize
> window - though actually there's an increase of 1, so the
glass-half-full
> perspective has us in profit! - "1992 bad products already blocked,
3
> additional protections possible. Please immunize." Over and over and
over.
> No doubt they'll be dealing with this. It doesn't happen in XP.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 3:32:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Tom:
I am greatful for your contribution and followed the instructions to the
'z'.
Everything went fine, except for the immunization part, which was ok. with
vers.1.3, but here leaves me with 1990 bad products blocked (not 1992 as
with Shane) and 3 to go.
When I click on immunize, it will temporarily immunize those three, but then
go right back to before.
Can this be corrected?

Harry.


"TomV" <t@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o $5rXCtZFHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Info:
>
> http://safer-networking.org/en/news/2005-05-31.html
>
> I was only able to connect to the Beta News mirror for the download.
>
> It's recommended that you uninstall the previous version. See the
> following instructions for uninstalling and reinstalling:
>
> http://forums.net-integration.net/index.php?showtopic=3...
>
> Everything appears to be okay here with the new release.
June 3, 2005 3:32:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Harry,

Glad to hear everything went well. Apparently, the immunize issue is
occurring on WinMe only. I suspect either Spybot will offer an update
at some point in the future to correct the issue. The problem has been
reported in the Spybot forum. If there is a fix, I'm sure it will turn
up here. It's nothing major to be concerned about, more a PIA than
anything else.

Tom

webster72n wrote:
> Tom:
> I am greatful for your contribution and followed the instructions to the
> 'z'.
> Everything went fine, except for the immunization part, which was ok. with
> vers.1.3, but here leaves me with 1990 bad products blocked (not 1992 as
> with Shane) and 3 to go.
> When I click on immunize, it will temporarily immunize those three, but then
> go right back to before.
> Can this be corrected?
>
> Harry.
>
June 3, 2005 2:44:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Tom, the behaviour is identical on my 98se installation, if not on Dapper
Dan's. Having just read Heirloom stating that it seems to be a ME-only issue
I feel I should reiterate this just in case people are looking for what is
unique to Win ME as a cause.

Shane


"TomV" <t@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eMF%23%23U$ZFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Harry,
>
> Glad to hear everything went well. Apparently, the immunize issue is
> occurring on WinMe only. I suspect either Spybot will offer an update
> at some point in the future to correct the issue. The problem has been
> reported in the Spybot forum. If there is a fix, I'm sure it will turn
> up here. It's nothing major to be concerned about, more a PIA than
> anything else.
>
> Tom
>
> webster72n wrote:
> > Tom:
> > I am greatful for your contribution and followed the instructions to the
> > 'z'.
> > Everything went fine, except for the immunization part, which was ok.
with
> > vers.1.3, but here leaves me with 1990 bad products blocked (not 1992 as
> > with Shane) and 3 to go.
> > When I click on immunize, it will temporarily immunize those three, but
then
> > go right back to before.
> > Can this be corrected?
> >
> > Harry.
> >
June 3, 2005 2:44:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hi, Shane,

I should have been clear that it's Win 9x systems, not just ME. Thanks
for pointing that out.

Tom

Shane wrote:
> Tom, the behaviour is identical on my 98se installation, if not on Dapper
> Dan's. Having just read Heirloom stating that it seems to be a ME-only issue
> I feel I should reiterate this just in case people are looking for what is
> unique to Win ME as a cause.
>
> Shane
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 3:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Therefore I will not worry about it until there is a fix, Tom.
Thank you for the reassurance.

Harry.


"TomV" <t@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eMF%23%23U$ZFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Harry,
>
> Glad to hear everything went well. Apparently, the immunize issue is
> occurring on WinMe only. I suspect either Spybot will offer an update
> at some point in the future to correct the issue. The problem has been
> reported in the Spybot forum. If there is a fix, I'm sure it will turn
> up here. It's nothing major to be concerned about, more a PIA than
> anything else.
>
> Tom
>
> webster72n wrote:
> > Tom:
> > I am greatful for your contribution and followed the instructions to the
> > 'z'.
> > Everything went fine, except for the immunization part, which was ok.
with
> > vers.1.3, but here leaves me with 1990 bad products blocked (not 1992 as
> > with Shane) and 3 to go.
> > When I click on immunize, it will temporarily immunize those three, but
then
> > go right back to before.
> > Can this be corrected?
> >
> > Harry.
> >
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 4:30:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Dapper Dan wrote:
<snip>
>
> Just a quick heads up that in Settings - Ignore products - All
> products, the following three entries are checked by default and may
> well be best unchecked.
>
> CDilla
> SideStep
> New.Net

huh?

Why would S&D default to not ignoring those pests ? (I'm not familiar
with the first two, but New.net is a CWS variant, no?)


Rick
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 3:22:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

CDilla is the copy protection agent, or service, from Safe Cast, which first
gained notoriaty when used, without notice or explanation, in Intuit's
TurboTax 2002 and Quicken, and similar products.
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/t1077731055

AFAIK, it is not spyware, but is a constantly running service which
authenicates the current installed application as not counterfeit.
Intuit begain using it when they observed that something like 85% of the
electronic tax filings through their IRS-connected vendors were created
using pirated TurboTax copies.
-----

Uninstalling TurboTax 2002 and SAFECAST (C-Dilla) components
SUMMARY:
Important: Do not use a third-party program (such as Norton Uninstaller) to
uninstall TurboTax, as these programs may delete your tax return data.

Instructions:

Windows 95, Windows 98 or 98SE, or Windows Me:

On the Windows taskbar, click Start, choose Programs, choose TurboTax
[version] 2002, and then choose Uninstall.
Click Yes at the message "This will permanently remove this program from
your computer. Are you sure that you wish to continue?"
Click Yes To All in the Remove Shared File window, and then click OK.
After TurboTax has been removed from your computer, run the SafeCast
Uninstaller.
When finished, restart your computer.
http://support.turbotax.com/turbotax/doc/0160000061
---

In my hands under XP, the impact on performance is negligible.
I consider it a rational and acceptible response to widespread piracy of
several very popular products.
Similarly, I have no problem with MS's WPA policy.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Rick T" <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uecAikFaFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Dapper Dan wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Just a quick heads up that in Settings - Ignore products - All
> > products, the following three entries are checked by default and may
> > well be best unchecked.
> >
> > CDilla
> > SideStep
> > New.Net
>
> huh?
>
> Why would S&D default to not ignoring those pests ? (I'm not familiar
> with the first two, but New.net is a CWS variant, no?)
>
>
> Rick
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 5:50:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jack E Martinelli wrote:

<copy protection... CDilla>
> In my hands under XP, the impact on performance is negligible.
> I consider it a rational and acceptible response to widespread piracy of
> several very popular products.
> Similarly, I have no problem with MS's WPA policy.

I have problems with methods that affect the performance of the product;
case in point:

The drivers/software for one of my video capture cards (with a TV tuner)
includes Macrovision; while in itself this doesn't bother me, the fact
that if a signal is a little weak it thinks its a copy and kicks in and
stops recording; *that* bothers me.

And I bet that the CDilla or whatever is running constantly whether
you're using the tax program or not... that's a company that's costing
me money because they apparently legally assume that I'm a criminal.


Rick
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 5:44:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jack E Martinelli wrote:
> Hi, Rick.
>
> Re: 1) " the fact that if a signal is a little weak it thinks its a copy
> and kicks in and
>
>>stops recording; *that* bothers me.
>
>
> I recommend that you report this, hoping that it can it can be fixed.

The card in question was from the 90s, the company wouldn't fix them
(and the drivers weren't written in-house), so the user community hacked
the driver. To the best of my knowledge the UC is pretty well above
board and few if any are inclined to substitute the letter 'z' for the
letter 's' while writing.

>
> 2) " I bet that the CDilla or whatever is running constantly "
>
> I also would prefer that the copy protection not run constantly. I am not
> qualified to critique this particular method.

Just off the top of my head...

- purchase the software
- call the company's 800 number and give them the unique registration
key and the serial number of your hard disk
- company gives you an installation key calculated from the above
- viola

> I would hope that better
> programming would avoid this issue, avoiding any executing oversight process
> under normal situations.

Roxio CDR software checks the CD drive every couple seconds "is there a
disk yet?"

> However, a process consuming less than 1% of cpu
> time is not a problem, under normal circumstances.

Depends on your definition of problem... my hardware doesn't belong to
them.... 1% of what I've "invested" in it + running costs is a
defineable sum.

> 3) "that's a company that's costing me money because they apparently
> legally assume that I'm a criminal."
>
> Is this cost to you more than a few pennies a month?

It may be: there is a micropercentage of computer owners for which the
extra bit of processing forces an hardware upgrade (straw that broke the
cpu's back)... eventually that will be me for some thing or another.

> The cost from piracy to Intuit is enormous. I can understand the need for
> copy protection for such widely used, easily pirated software.

I don't mind security measures; I mind paying for incompetence.

> Unfortunately, many of our fellow computer users are thieves, unless
> thwarted.

There's social problems lurking there; peer pressure (or perceived peer
pressure) that being a criminal is "cool" and of course "I didn't know
it was pirated" (like the CDR with "Tax Stuf" writ in magic-marker isn't
a clue).

The funny thing is most of the time pirated software is faulty and
virus-ridden so frauds generally do get their comeuppance in the form of
having to reformat their disk or getting a little note from the
government that their tax return figures are a bit shaky (possibly
delivered by men in dark suits).

Quicken *is* a pretty good product and IMHO well worth the $20-40 bucks
if you require/want computer-assisted accounting software.



Rick
!