New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

[Mike M]

Re: New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

Mart,

Good to read I'm not alone in rarely bothering with AdAware. What I
didn't mention is that having run it I was told that I had two tracking
cookies (I hadn't checked for ages) and two Hacktool.Keyfinder Objects.
The latter being copies (exe and zip) of Magic Jellybean in my downloads
folder. Sadly this demonstrated to me that AdAware isn't that good in
this area otherwise it would have found a number of other similar and
better tools than Magic Jellybean such as ProduKey from NirSoft in the
same folder which I use to audit my various systems.
--
Mike


Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> Funny you mention that you don't bother with AdAware very much Mike. I
> switched to the 2007 version (on this XP box) jut after it first came
> out and found it too messy to bother with so consequently haven't
> used it much either.
>
> Following your post, I've just 'uninstalled' it and installed an old
> copy of SE (R106 dated 05/2006). It immediately offered to update and
> d/l'd R181. Far faster and easier than the 2007 updates!
>
> Lavasoft's 17MB 2007 bloatware verses their older 2.7MB SE doesn't
> equate. So its back to the old familiar - and simpler - version but
> probably still wont use it too often though <g>

 

[Dapper Dan]

Re: Shane

Re: Shane

If it were me, Jeanette, I would simply uninstall what you have, then
download a new copy and reinstall. Seems to me that would be a lot quicker
than trying to fix something that you may or may not have done previously.

Dan


"jeanette" <jeany@lostincyber.com> wrote in message
news:%23aBW5eRyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello Shane,,
>
> I went and grabbed the new def file, and noted that it was 1.2meg zipped.
> When going into my adaware folder, I checked the size of the file
> currently being used (1.24meg) and the one that I must have done
> manually and renamed to def.old(1.22meg).
> This seems to say to me that all I really have working for me at the
> moment is a mere few defs of which I manually loaded about 2 months
> ago.... (via a Link I found somewhere to the def files)
> Surely the def file should be much much larger than that? I have been
> using adaware for 3 years and always update/check on a weekly basis, so
> afaic it should have swelled dramatically over the years.
> If my suspicions are correct, is there somewhere that I can download 3yrs
> worth of defs?
> If this is viable, exactly what should I do each time I get new update
> defs?
> I know I must put them in adawares folder, and that I must re-name the
> 'other one' to defs.old or similar;; what else needs to be done, or do I
> have
> this all skew-whiff.?
>
> J
>
>

 

[Shane]

Re: New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

Yes, the Nirsoft stuff is good. And no, I don't really use Ad-aware anymore,
it is a similar length of time as the age of your defs since I last did a
scan with it. Back in late-2000 it was good and as far as I was aware the
only anti-Spyware product around. People were only just beginning to take
that sort of thing seriously and indeed I spent a lot of trying to convince
others to take Spyware seriously. I never did convince my family (I don't
know why I didn't inherit the block of wood for a head <must do something
about this dry rot though!>). My family using this computer is the reason I
retain Ad-aware - on account of having the real-time protection *Plus*
version - only I have lost faith in it since Stark put his money into the
business (not *because* he did - just it seems to have exactly coincided
with the constant decline in quality of recent years). Having it running in
real-time was a pain on Millennium, but fine in XP, but as I never get so
much as a tracking cookie, I don't know if it works anymore. I do know there
have been endless false positives and new builds seem to tend to be released
in a flawed state.

I will say, though, that as always was the case, I still think you need more
than one tool in whichever anti-malware field, because they still and
probably always will find that which others miss. That is, if commit the
cardinal sin in the first place of thinking you should be able to surf
without taking precautions, and then doing so just to be difficult! As we
wiser heads know, it isn't possible for anti-this or anti-that to give 100%
protection! Its like people who stubbornly refuse to lock their doors when
they go out!

Anyway, the story is - ie, you may remember having read it before! - when I
got Millennium in Nov 2000, I read this guide to the internet book and it
recommended PKZip. And Zone Alarm. I installed both, and Zone Alarm asked me
if I wanted to let tsadbot access the net. Being a generally sensible sort I
declined on account of not knowing what the hell tsadbot was! Then I went
online and Googled it (I think I had the Google Toolbar too). I saw a few
hits that mentioned Spyware - Cexx.org etc - so I read about it. That made
me want to get rid of it and keep that stuff out in future, so I went
looking for something to that end and found Ad-aware (and only Ad-aware). I
downloaded the personal version and in Dec registered for the Plus version
(which came with a lifetime of updates and support. Now you have to register
with their forum to get that support - a really poxy move if you ask me!).

It was good - for a long while! It was the first, of that I for one am
pretty confident despite my job here seeming to be to demonstrate how wrong
you can be! I rather naughtily installed it on my sister and father's
machines - for the Ad-watch real-time scanning - but my sister doesn't
update and my father does just about everything you read about at Computer
Stupidities - so I took it off again.

Lavasoft now appears to be positioning themselves as the Symantec of
anti-spyware. Say no more, eh?


Shane





Mike M wrote:
> Mart,
>
> Good to read I'm not alone in rarely bothering with AdAware. What I
> didn't mention is that having run it I was told that I had two
> tracking cookies (I hadn't checked for ages) and two
> Hacktool.Keyfinder Objects. The latter being copies (exe and zip) of
> Magic Jellybean in my downloads folder. Sadly this demonstrated to
> me that AdAware isn't that good in this area otherwise it would have
> found a number of other similar and better tools than Magic Jellybean
> such as ProduKey from NirSoft in the same folder which I use to audit
> my various systems.
>> Funny you mention that you don't bother with AdAware very much Mike.
>> I switched to the 2007 version (on this XP box) jut after it first
>> came out and found it too messy to bother with so consequently
>> haven't used it much either.
>>
>> Following your post, I've just 'uninstalled' it and installed an old
>> copy of SE (R106 dated 05/2006). It immediately offered to update and
>> d/l'd R181. Far faster and easier than the 2007 updates!
>>
>> Lavasoft's 17MB 2007 bloatware verses their older 2.7MB SE doesn't
>> equate. So its back to the old familiar - and simpler - version but
>> probably still wont use it too often though <g>

 

[Shane]

Re: Shane

Re: Shane

No need for that, Dan. afaics there's nothing wrong with Jeanette's copy.
Heroblem with updating is one I'm also having and, besides uninstalling and
reinstalling having in the meantime manually removed any registry entries
that might remain and thus, if the problem remained, be suspect and require
another reinstall for, I have at least half a doz bootable partitions atm
with Ad-aware on most and I've checked it in all and the problem - updates
failing with an error at 5% - is in every single one. I did a fresh XP
install last night to test a few things, Ad-aware updating included - and
even on a new system in which I have disabled no services or lost track of
the firewall rules etc, it still fails at 5%.

As for the other issue, it looks like a simple misunderstanding of
Jeanette's.


Shane

Dapper Dan wrote:
> If it were me, Jeanette, I would simply uninstall what you have, then
> download a new copy and reinstall. Seems to me that would be a lot
> quicker than trying to fix something that you may or may not have
> done previously.
> Dan
>
>
> "jeanette" <jeany@lostincyber.com> wrote in message
> news:%23aBW5eRyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hello Shane,,
>>
>> I went and grabbed the new def file, and noted that it was 1.2meg
>> zipped. When going into my adaware folder, I checked the size of the
>> file currently being used (1.24meg) and the one that I must have done
>> manually and renamed to def.old(1.22meg).
>> This seems to say to me that all I really have working for me at the
>> moment is a mere few defs of which I manually loaded about 2 months
>> ago.... (via a Link I found somewhere to the def files)
>> Surely the def file should be much much larger than that? I have
>> been using adaware for 3 years and always update/check on a weekly
>> basis, so afaic it should have swelled dramatically over the years.
>> If my suspicions are correct, is there somewhere that I can download
>> 3yrs worth of defs?
>> If this is viable, exactly what should I do each time I get new
>> update defs?
>> I know I must put them in adawares folder, and that I must re-name
>> the 'other one' to defs.old or similar;; what else needs to be done,
>> or do I have
>> this all skew-whiff.?
>>
>> J

 

[Shane]

Re: Shane

Re: Shane

Hi Jeanette,

As I understand it, you're thinking that each def file should be larger than
the last, because it contains the old defs plus some new ones? If so, that's
not the way it works. Well, in the long run it does, but from file to file
there is much fluctuation. For instance there will be definitions that have
been removed. They may have been false positives - very likely with Ad-aware
these days actually! - or a threat that is bno longer a threat. They may
have rewritten defs in a more efficient way using fewer characters, say by
eliminating a step now realised to be redundant. They may have realised that
two threats are in fact the same one independently discovered and named. Who
knows. But it has always been the case that a new definition file may well
be smaller than the previous one.

I hope this reassures you, but if I've misunderstood your concern, please
post back and I, one or all of the others will attempt to address it!

Shane


jeanette wrote:
> Hello Shane,,
>
> I went and grabbed the new def file, and noted that it was 1.2meg
> zipped. When going into my adaware folder, I checked the size of the
> file
> currently being used (1.24meg) and the one that I must have done
> manually and renamed to def.old(1.22meg).
> This seems to say to me that all I really have working for me at the
> moment is a mere few defs of which I manually loaded about 2 months
> ago.... (via a Link I found somewhere to the def files)
> Surely the def file should be much much larger than that? I have
> been using adaware for 3 years and always update/check on a weekly
> basis, so afaic it should have swelled dramatically over the years.
> If my suspicions are correct, is there somewhere that I can download
> 3yrs worth of defs?
> If this is viable, exactly what should I do each time I get new
> update defs? I know I must put them in adawares folder, and that I
> must re-name the 'other one' to defs.old or similar;; what else needs
> to be done, or do I have
> this all skew-whiff.?
>
> J

 

[Shane]

Re: Shane

Re: Shane

Shane wrote:
> No need for that, Dan. afaics there's nothing wrong with Jeanette's
> copy. Heroblem with updating is one I'm also having and, besides

Where my problem is using a different keyboard and repeatedly hitting that
bloody Insert key!


Shane

 

[Shane]

Re: Shane

Re: Shane

Also I believe she's in Oz whereas I'm in the UK, so there's no way we're
using the same isp.

Shane





Shane wrote:
> No need for that, Dan. afaics there's nothing wrong with Jeanette's
> copy. Heroblem with updating is one I'm also having and, besides
> uninstalling and reinstalling having in the meantime manually removed
> any registry entries that might remain and thus, if the problem
> remained, be suspect and require another reinstall for, I have at
> least half a doz bootable partitions atm with Ad-aware on most and
> I've checked it in all and the problem - updates failing with an
> error at 5% - is in every single one. I did a fresh XP install last
> night to test a few things, Ad-aware updating included - and even on
> a new system in which I have disabled no services or lost track of
> the firewall rules etc, it still fails at 5%.
> As for the other issue, it looks like a simple misunderstanding of
> Jeanette's.
>
>
> Shane
>
> Dapper Dan wrote:
>> If it were me, Jeanette, I would simply uninstall what you have, then
>> download a new copy and reinstall. Seems to me that would be a lot
>> quicker than trying to fix something that you may or may not have
>> done previously.
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> "jeanette" <jeany@lostincyber.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23aBW5eRyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello Shane,,
>>>
>>> I went and grabbed the new def file, and noted that it was 1.2meg
>>> zipped. When going into my adaware folder, I checked the size of the
>>> file currently being used (1.24meg) and the one that I must have
>>> done manually and renamed to def.old(1.22meg).
>>> This seems to say to me that all I really have working for me at the
>>> moment is a mere few defs of which I manually loaded about 2 months
>>> ago.... (via a Link I found somewhere to the def files)
>>> Surely the def file should be much much larger than that? I have
>>> been using adaware for 3 years and always update/check on a weekly
>>> basis, so afaic it should have swelled dramatically over the years.
>>> If my suspicions are correct, is there somewhere that I can download
>>> 3yrs worth of defs?
>>> If this is viable, exactly what should I do each time I get new
>>> update defs?
>>> I know I must put them in adawares folder, and that I must re-name
>>> the 'other one' to defs.old or similar;; what else needs to be done,
>>> or do I have
>>> this all skew-whiff.?
>>>
>>> J

 

[Shane]

Re: JSWare's piece on Vista

Re: JSWare's piece on Vista

Yes, indeed.

Well, that's half a dozen of us! ;-)


Shane

Ogg wrote:
> Kudos to JSWare. Enough is enough.
>
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote ..
>> Anyhow, that's it for now. I expect I shall play a litlle longer,
>> but I've just been reading JSWare's piece on Vista:
>> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/ditips.php3#vist and am tending towards
>> removing this one and harrassing politicians for letting M$ do what
>> they want, instead.

 

[Shane]

Re: Shane

Re: Shane

Sorry Jeanette, completely skipped this bit!

No, nowhere and no need to download 3 years worth of defs. Yes, you unzip
the latest defs.zip into the Ad-aware folder, ie if you want a backup of the
old definitions file, you delete defs.old, rename defs.ref to defs.old, then
unzip defs.zip there.

Personally I'm not concerned about having a backup of the penultimate defs
file. If you don't bother doing the 'renaming to defs.old' part, then, in
the unlikely event you need to revert, well, you'll just have a slightly
older one. It won't likely get to the point of the defs.old being months
behind, because the problem isn't likely to last that long. If it looks like
it will, I for one will be requiring action from whoever's responsible, as
the implications will be potentially dire. So doing it manually should just
be a temporary requirement, in which case I don't think it worth bothering
backing the old one up, since the backup you already have will do.

Hope I didn't repeat myself *too* much!

Shane









jeanette wrote:
> Hello Shane,,
>
> I went and grabbed the new def file, and noted that it was 1.2meg
> zipped. When going into my adaware folder, I checked the size of the
> file
> currently being used (1.24meg) and the one that I must have done
> manually and renamed to def.old(1.22meg).
> This seems to say to me that all I really have working for me at the
> moment is a mere few defs of which I manually loaded about 2 months
> ago.... (via a Link I found somewhere to the def files)
> Surely the def file should be much much larger than that? I have
> been using adaware for 3 years and always update/check on a weekly
> basis, so afaic it should have swelled dramatically over the years.
> If my suspicions are correct, is there somewhere that I can download
> 3yrs worth of defs?
> If this is viable, exactly what should I do each time I get new
> update defs? I know I must put them in adawares folder, and that I
> must re-name the 'other one' to defs.old or similar;; what else needs
> to be done, or do I have
> this all skew-whiff.?
>
> J

 

[Shane]

Re: New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

Suddenly it's working again.

Shane

Heather wrote:
> I still update thru the old program. Must be your server.
>
> Figgs
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23R$gwDIyHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It isn't really hard to find the defs at Lavasoft, much as I hate
>> *not* to rubbish them. Anyhow, if you're talking about the old
>> Ad-aware, they seem to have stopped providing definitions for it. At
>> least for some time my copy has quit downloading at 5% with an error.
>> I've tried this in numerous different systems and it fails at 5% on
>> all of them. Of course that may be they're all set to the same and
>> only one server - but still...
>>
>> At the home page, hover over 'Download and buy' and in the drop down
>> list is 'Definition file updates'. I just updated that way and it is
>> for the old one.
>>
>> Shane
>>
>>
>>
>> jeanette wrote:
>>> could someone plz post the link to the latest defs?
>>> i have been around and around and around adawares site, but do you
>>> think i could find a link to the defs page....... ? NO.
>>> i even googled.
>>> why the heck do companies always make it hard to find what people
>>> really want at their sites?
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
>>> news:u4R2aE6xHHA.5964@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Alias

 

[Shane]

Re: New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

Its working again now Joan.


Shane

Joan Archer wrote:
> I'm still getting the updates on Kelly and John's machines, I use the
> new one on mine.
> Joan
>
>
> Shane wrote:
>> It isn't really hard to find the defs at Lavasoft, much as I hate
>> *not* to rubbish them. Anyhow, if you're talking about the old
>> Ad-aware, they seem to have stopped providing definitions for it. At
>> least for some time my copy has quit downloading at 5% with an error.
>> I've tried this in numerous different systems and it fails at 5% on
>> all of them. Of course that may be they're all set to the same and
>> only one server - but still...
>> At the home page, hover over 'Download and buy' and in the drop down
>> list is 'Definition file updates'. I just updated that way and it is
>> for the old one.
>>
>> Shane

 

[Shane]

Re: New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

I don't know if you've found this yet - but if not I certainly hope its true
for you too - Ad-aware is updating again here.


Shane


jeanette wrote:
>> It isn't really hard to find the defs at Lavasoft, much as I hate
>> *not* to rubbish them. Anyhow, if you're talking about the old
>> Ad-aware, they seem to have stopped providing definitions for it. At
>> least for some time my copy has quit downloading at 5% with an
>> error. I've tried this in numerous different systems and it fails at
>> 5% on all of them. Of course that may be they're all set to the same
>> and only one server - but still...
>
> Yes Yes Yes Shane,,,, that is Exactly what is happening to mine.
>
>
>>
>> At the home page, hover over 'Download and buy' and in the drop down
>> list is 'Definition file updates'. I just updated that way and it is
>> for the old one.
>>
>> Shane
>
>
> Thanks, I'll shuffle on over and try it again. (although, I did
> prefer just tossing a boomerang and grabbing them that way.)
>
> J

 

[NotMe]

Re: New Ad-Aware 2007 Defns. 7/16/07

AOL got away with writing their software that way for years.
All their laid-off programmers must be working at MS now...Vistsa sure looks
like it!

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!
CarGodZeroOne@hotmail.com
Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uxx9uhByHHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Mike M wrote:
>>> Here's a funny one. I tried to install it in Server 2008 beta - which
>>> is essentially the corporate version of Vista afaics
>>
>> Not at all and very different Shane. Server 2008 is a very locked
>> down updated W2K3 rather than Vista which is a client OS and not a
>> server. OK, I know you know this but ...
>
> Yes. I'm not very precise these days. Maybe I never was, but I guess
> that's for other's to say. But I spend so much time grasping for
> words...possibly I should add a sig warning people not to take me *too*
> literally!
>
> It bugs me.
>
> Anyhow, first I saw of the 'Enhanced Security' was when it offered a
> printer driver update - which I figured I ought to download - and it
> blocked the .exe as if it were a web site! And then it blocked
> Microsoft.com! And then I disabled it for the Internet Zone.
>
> I was about to work my way through Group Policy but was immediately
> informed I had to log on as a member of a domain. I thought being logged
> on as Administrator would be enough! The Administrator who installed the
> damn thing!
>
> Anyhow, that's it for now. I expect I shall play a litlle longer, but I've
> just been reading JSWare's piece on Vista:
> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/ditips.php3#vist and am tending towards
> removing this one and harrassing politicians for letting M$ do what they
> want, instead.
>
>
> Shane
>
>>
>>> Here's a funny one. I tried to install it in Server 2008 beta - which
>>> is essentially the corporate version of Vista afaics. Certainly Vista
>>> builds of just about everything install. Not Ad-aware 2007.
>>>
>>> The previous one does though! ROFL! So I've got the old build running
>>> in it!
>
>