For a while now I have noticed that immunization using Spybot is not 'taking hold,' and that when I check sometime later after rebooting once or twice, the updated FF protection is gone (see attached image). I read in other threads that sometimes system monitoring programs can block the changes, but since TeaTimer/SDResident is what I have monitoring my registry from changes and they are Spybot programs, I can't imagine that is my problem. Wouldn't they allow any changes that their parent program is trying to make? I am running XP Home 2002 SP3, with free versions of ZA (firewall), AVG (AV), and Spybot's SDResident/TeaTimer, Mbam and Super AS (AS) all updated regularly. So my question is three parts: 1. Is there anything out there that is known to block immunization of FF - i.e., might this be an infection of some kind? 2. Is there some hidden conflict I don't know about? The immunizations appear to update correctly, but then later on - not even always after the initial reboot - they are gone again. But I never get any of the typical "do you want to allow these changes" kind of popup messages that I would expect if one of my monitoring programs was catching changes and wondering whether to block them. 3. It would be a hassle, but if I immunize after every reboot and Spybot tells me FF is completely immunized, would it actually BE immunized at that point and fully safe to browse with, or is Spybot making an error and reporting changes that are not actually implemented yet and will be blocked later on from actually taking effect?? EDIT: I'm not so much asking whether I should use/not use Spybot. I like that it constantly asks me about changes to my system, and I will keep the program. I just want to know how to fix this particular issue. EDIT 2: There is info on immunization being blocked here: http://www.safer-networking.org/en/faq/17.html but it is mostly for IE, and that is not being blocked on my system. I'm having trouble with FF (3.55), which is not mentioned. Thanks.