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

Alias

Shane
Mon Jul 16 18:04:23 CDT 2007

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!


Shane

Alias wrote:
> Alias

Mike
Mon Jul 16 18:45:24 CDT 2007

> 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 ...
--
Mike M


Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!

Shane
Mon Jul 16 20:49:22 CDT 2007

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!

jeanette
Tue Jul 17 04:53:28 CDT 2007

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

Ogg
Tue Jul 17 06:08:20 CDT 2007

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.

Mike
Tue Jul 17 07:03:51 CDT 2007

Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:

> Kudos to JSWare. Enough is enough.

Much that I dislike Vista their recommendation "should run without
problems if you disable the "User Account Control" (UAC) function which
limits your access to your files, and if you run as "Administrator"
(without restricted permission)." smacks of total ignorance. UAC
certainly does not restrict access to "your files" although it does
restrict access to actions requiring a permission higher than the current
user. Disabling UAC as recommended whilst solving one problem is going to
cause a cascade of other problems for the user regardless of their
privileges.

Nevertheless I agree that their statement "In fact, much of the JSWare
freeware has been specifically designed not to run on Windows Vista at
all, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion for people using Windows
Vista, and also to avoid unnecessary support queries at JSWare." has much
to commend it.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com

Shane
Tue Jul 17 09:43:47 CDT 2007

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

Heather
Tue Jul 17 10:28:45 CDT 2007

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
Tue Jul 17 10:42:41 CDT 2007

Yes, well, *their* server.


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

Joan
Tue Jul 17 15:55:04 CDT 2007

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
>
>
>

Heather
Tue Jul 17 16:15:22 CDT 2007

Oops.....misread that one. Oh well, whatever. (G)

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OS$5jkIyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Yes, well, *their* server.
>
>
> Heather wrote:
>> I still update thru the old program. Must be your server.
>>
>> Figgs
>>
>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23R$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
Tue Jul 17 16:25:39 CDT 2007

I just decided Tiscali seem to be having problems lately and wondering if
they're to blame for the Ad-aware def issue. Tiscali are becoming widely
known to be basically crap hopeless. Just they're better than Tesco.


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
Tue Jul 17 16:29:25 CDT 2007

Yes well depends who you mean by 'your', I suppose. If you meant 'your isp'
perhaps you'd be right. I am beginning to wonder. If it is - I am getting
sick to the back teeth of incompetence in the UK/European isp biz. Though
from what I've heard over the years, the ones that side of the pond are as
bad.

And then again, as I'm running Server 2008 beta, you could be forgiven for
thinking I'm running one! Well, i suppose I am, only its serving sod all,
not even a round of cheese and pickle sandwiches!


Heather wrote:
> Oops.....misread that one. Oh well, whatever. (G)
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OS$5jkIyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Yes, well, *their* server.
>>
>>
>> Heather wrote:
>>> I still update thru the old program. Must be your server.
>>>
>>> Figgs
>>>
>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23R$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

Alias
Tue Jul 17 19:44:02 CDT 2007

Shane wrote:
> Yes well depends who you mean by 'your', I suppose. If you meant 'your isp'
> perhaps you'd be right. I am beginning to wonder. If it is - I am getting
> sick to the back teeth of incompetence in the UK/European isp biz. Though
> from what I've heard over the years, the ones that side of the pond are as
> bad.

I'm pretty happy with ONO cable at 4MB/300KB. I also love being able to
see CNN again. When I got here in '90, Spain only had two government
controlled channels, 1 and 2. No commercials but the shows generally
sucked. Now I can watch Prison Break in English and I have over 60 channels!

Alias
>
> And then again, as I'm running Server 2008 beta, you could be forgiven for
> thinking I'm running one! Well, i suppose I am, only its serving sod all,
> not even a round of cheese and pickle sandwiches!
>
>
> Heather wrote:
>> Oops.....misread that one. Oh well, whatever. (G)
>>
>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OS$5jkIyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Yes, well, *their* server.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heather wrote:
>>>> I still update thru the old program. Must be your server.
>>>>
>>>> Figgs
>>>>
>>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23R$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
>
>

jeanette
Wed Jul 18 03:10:51 CDT 2007


> 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

Mike
Wed Jul 18 03:24:51 CDT 2007

I'm one of those who doesn't really bother with AdAware but having it
installed on this box thought I'd see what happens. I launched AdAware to
be told my definition were just 255 days old (I did say I didn't use it
<G>) and was offered new definitions SE1R181 dated 16 July 2007 which came
straight down and installed without problem. It looks as if the problem
you were seeing has been fixed or alternatively is maybe an ISP "thing".
--
Mike


Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> 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.

jeanette
Wed Jul 18 03:43:47 CDT 2007

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

Mike
Wed Jul 18 04:36:04 CDT 2007

AdAware SE tells you which version of its definition file it is using on
its Status tab. The most recent being SE1R181 dated 16 July 2007 which is
1,339,941 bytes (1.27MB).

Reference Number : SE1R181 16.07.2007
Internal build : 222
File location : C:\Program Files\Malware Tools\Ad-Aware SE
Personal\defs.ref
File size : 1339941 Bytes
Total size : 4513348 Bytes
Signature data size : 4470899 Bytes
Reference data size : 41937 Bytes
Signatures total : 114778
CSI Fingerprints total : 8470
CSI data size : 533436 Bytes
Target categories : 15
Target families : 1151
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


jeanette <jeany@lostincyber.com> 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

Mart
Wed Jul 18 04:40:39 CDT 2007

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>

Mart



"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%237xa5aRyHHA.3788@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I'm one of those who doesn't really bother with AdAware but having it
> installed on this box thought I'd see what happens. I launched AdAware to
> be told my definition were just 255 days old (I did say I didn't use it
> <G>) and was offered new definitions SE1R181 dated 16 July 2007 which came
> straight down and installed without problem. It looks as if the problem
> you were seeing has been fixed or alternatively is maybe an ISP "thing".
> --
> Mike
>
>
> Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> 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.
>

Mike
Wed Jul 18 05:05:00 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 07:16:42 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 08:41:15 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 08:49:04 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 08:56:19 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 09:02:35 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 09:05:22 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 09:08:37 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 09:28:32 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 10:47:56 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 10:47:04 CDT 2007

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
Wed Jul 18 10:48:54 CDT 2007

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
Thu Jul 19 18:30:04 CDT 2007

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!
>
>