Guest Matt Woods Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Hello, I have recently upgraded my Ad-aware spyware detector to their anniversary edition and it has flagged a DLL file as suspicious- the file is C\WINDOWS\SMNST\WNASPNTDLL I have read that the new version of Ad-aware flags some of windows critical files ie false alarms -I would be grateful to know whether this DLL file is a windows critical file or something more sinister- the software prompts me to ignore once by the way. Thanks in anticipation Matt Woods Quote
Guest Malke Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Matt Woods wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > I have recently upgraded my Ad-aware spyware detector to > their > anniversary edition and it has flagged a DLL file as suspicious- the file > is</span> <span style="color:blue"> > CWINDOWSSMNSTWNASPNTDLL > > I have read that the new version of Ad-aware flags some of windows > critical files ie false alarms -I would be grateful to know whether this > DLL file is a windows critical file or something more sinister- the > software prompts me to ignore once by the way.</span> Did you make a typo with that name? The correct name should have a period before the "dll" as in WNASPNT.DLL. The latter produces a link showing that the .dll belongs to a Desernet Broadband Media driver. Do you have this hardware? You might want to scan with an alternate antimalware program such as the free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM). Get it at www.malwarebytes.org. Otherwise, post your question in the Ad-aware user forums. http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/ Malke -- MS-MVP Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic! http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ Quote
Guest Matt Woods Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to the best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I gather from what you are saying this should be deleted ?? Thanks Matt "Malke" <malke@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:ONEEl5tiJHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Matt Woods wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> I have recently upgraded my Ad-aware spyware detector to >> their >> anniversary edition and it has flagged a DLL file as suspicious- the file >> is</span> ><span style="color:green"> >> CWINDOWSSMNSTWNASPNTDLL >> >> I have read that the new version of Ad-aware flags some of windows >> critical files ie false alarms -I would be grateful to know whether this >> DLL file is a windows critical file or something more sinister- the >> software prompts me to ignore once by the way.</span> > > Did you make a typo with that name? The correct name should have a period > before the "dll" as in WNASPNT.DLL. The latter produces a link showing > that > the .dll belongs to a Desernet Broadband Media driver. Do you have this > hardware? > > You might want to scan with an alternate antimalware program such as the > free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM). Get it at > www.malwarebytes.org. > > Otherwise, post your question in the Ad-aware user forums. > > http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/ > > Malke > -- > MS-MVP > Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic! > http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ > </span> Quote
Guest Malke Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Matt Woods wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to the > best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I > gather from what you are saying this should be deleted ??</span> No, you couldn't possibly gather that from what I wrote. All you could gather was that I suggested you a) try scanning with a different antimalware program; and style_emoticons/ post questions about whether this is a false-positive in the Lavasoft forums. Malke -- MS-MVP Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic! http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ Quote
Guest Matt Woods Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 Ok point taken-thanks Malke Matt "Malke" <malke@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:%23tuVTfuiJHA.500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Matt Woods wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to >> the >> best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I >> gather from what you are saying this should be deleted ??</span> > > No, you couldn't possibly gather that from what I wrote. All you could > gather was that I suggested you a) try scanning with a different > antimalware program; and style_emoticons/ post questions about whether this is a > false-positive in the Lavasoft forums. > > Malke > -- > MS-MVP > Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic! > http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ > </span> Quote
Guest Cody Jarrett Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:01:39 -0000, "Matt Woods" <j.mattwoods@btinternet.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Ok point taken-thanks Malke</span> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all the crap it found compared to all the others. <span style="color:blue"> >Matt >"Malke" <malke@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:%23tuVTfuiJHA.500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> Matt Woods wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to >>> the >>> best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I >>> gather from what you are saying this should be deleted ??</span> >> >> No, you couldn't possibly gather that from what I wrote. All you could >> gather was that I suggested you a) try scanning with a different >> antimalware program; and style_emoticons/ post questions about whether this is a >> false-positive in the Lavasoft forums. >> >> Malke >> -- >> MS-MVP >> Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic! >> http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ >> </span></span> Quote
Guest Sam Hobbs Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all > the crap it found compared to all the others.</span> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using Ad-Aware. Quote
Guest FromTheRafters Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Yes, I believe he meant crud. "Sam Hobbs" <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote in message news:1AB31505-DCF8-4D8F-A518-962172DDB802@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message > news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com...<span style="color:green"> >> >> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >> the crap it found compared to all the others.</span> > > That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that > Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using > Ad-Aware. </span> Quote
Guest Cody Jarrett Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >"Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com...<span style="color:green"> >> >> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >> the crap it found compared to all the others.</span> > >That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >Ad-Aware. </span> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding false positives than others. Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run Ad-Aware. Quote
Guest Jack the Ripper Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" > <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>> the crap it found compared to all the others.</span> >> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >> Ad-Aware. </span> > > To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that > needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. > > It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, > and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding > false positives than others. > > Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run > Ad-Aware.</span> LOL, and you do know that the machine cannot be attacked by a Web browser cookie, since its only text and is not executable code. That's all Ad-Aware every found on any of my machines too, cookies. style_emoticons/ So, I stopped using it. Quote
Guest Cody Jarrett Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:02:43 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Ripper.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" >> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: >> <span style="color:darkred"> >>> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com... >>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>>> the crap it found compared to all the others. >>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >>> Ad-Aware. </span> >> >> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that >> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. >> >> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, >> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding >> false positives than others. >> >> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run >> Ad-Aware.</span> > >LOL, and you do know that the machine cannot be attacked by a Web >browser cookie, since its only text and is not executable code. That's >all Ad-Aware every found on any of my machines too, cookies. style_emoticons/ So, I >stopped using it.</span> I've never had a virus/malware problem in many online years. If I needed disk/RAM space and couldn't afford to buy more, those programs would be the first to go. Quote
Guest Dave T. Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" > <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>> the crap it found compared to all the others.</span> >> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >> Ad-Aware. </span> > > To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that > needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. > > It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, > and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding > false positives than others. > > Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run > Ad-Aware.</span> Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles. Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I feel like a drone. -- Dave T. You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god. - Hirohito, Emporer of Japan Quote
Guest Cody Jarrett Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" >> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: >> <span style="color:darkred"> >>> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com... >>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>>> the crap it found compared to all the others. >>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >>> Ad-Aware. </span> >> >> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that >> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. >> >> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, >> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding >> false positives than others. >> >> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run >> Ad-Aware.</span> > > >Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles. >Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported >to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this >information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I >feel like a drone.</span> The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies. All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option) get deleted using CCleaner several times a day. In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick Not worth worrying about. Quote
Guest Dave T. Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> > wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >> Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:darkred"> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" >>> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: >>> >>>> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com... >>>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>>>> the crap it found compared to all the others. >>>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >>>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >>>> Ad-Aware. >>> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that >>> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. >>> >>> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, >>> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding >>> false positives than others. >>> >>> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run >>> Ad-Aware.</span> >> >> Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles. >> Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported >> to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this >> information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I >> feel like a drone.</span> > > The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites > I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies. > All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option) > get deleted using CCleaner several times a day. > > In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick > > Not worth worrying about.</span> I know what you mean. I was just being the devil's advocate and not too well I'm afraid. I guess the only point I was trying to make is that in the opinion of many, privacy is an issue that in the future could become more important than just the handling of cookies. Our President has demanded that all medical records be placed on line, and he cites numerous good reasons for wanting that. Makes me wonder. If you don't mind (and I know you don't), I think I will opt to attempt to achieve total privacy up to and including the stuff that's not worth worrying about. -- Dave T. You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god. - Hirohito, Emporer of Japan Quote
Guest Cody Jarrett Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:03:09 -0800, "Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> >> wrote: >> <span style="color:darkred"> >>> Cody Jarrett wrote: >>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" >>>> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com... >>>>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>>>>> the crap it found compared to all the others. >>>>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >>>>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >>>>> Ad-Aware. >>>> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that >>>> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. >>>> >>>> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, >>>> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding >>>> false positives than others. >>>> >>>> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run >>>> Ad-Aware. >>> >>> Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles. >>> Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported >>> to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this >>> information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I >>> feel like a drone.</span> >> >> The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites >> I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies. >> All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option) >> get deleted using CCleaner several times a day. >> >> In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick >> >> Not worth worrying about.</span> > > >I know what you mean. I was just being the devil's advocate and not too >well I'm afraid. > >I guess the only point I was trying to make is that in the opinion of >many, privacy is an issue that in the future could become more important >than just the handling of cookies. Our President has demanded that all >medical records be placed on line, and he cites numerous good reasons >for wanting that. Makes me wonder. If you don't mind (and I know you >don't), I think I will opt to attempt to achieve total privacy up to and >including the stuff that's not worth worrying about.</span> You're slamming the barn door after all the livestock has escaped. There is so much about you on file now that any attempt by you to protect your privacy is way too late. Quote
Guest Sam Hobbs Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Ripper.com> wrote in message news:edhz8OIjJHA.4644@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Cody Jarrett wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" >> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com... >>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>>> the crap it found compared to all the others. >>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped >>> using Ad-Aware.</span> >> >> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that >> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about. >> >> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies, >> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding >> false positives than others. >> >> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run >> Ad-Aware.</span> > > LOL, and you do know that the machine cannot be attacked by a Web browser > cookie, since its only text and is not executable code. That's all > Ad-Aware every found on any of my machines too, cookies. style_emoticons/ So, I stopped > using it.</span> When I began using Ad-Aware, my computer had very limited resources; both limited memory and processor. After using Ad-Aware the first time, I got a very noticeable performance improvement, with emphasis on very. Later, when I was having difficulty with a particular web site, I ran Ad-Aware and then I was able to use the web site. Before using Ad-Aware, my session timed out after about 30 minutes; after Ad-Aware, it took a couple of minutes at most to get what I needed. If my Outlook Express took too much time to respond for writing messages, I would run Ad-Aware and the delay would go away. I understand your logic that cookies are just text. I am not sure what is happening, but my guess is that the logic is in the web pages and that processes the data in the cookies. That uses resources. I understand that it does not make sense that such a thing could affect (infect) OE, but Ad-Aware can remove problems that can affect OE, and most everything Ad-Aware has removed in my system is cookies. Quote
Guest Sam Hobbs Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 "Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> wrote in message news:25Kkl.6884$jZ1.6693@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Cody Jarrett wrote: > > Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles. Why > should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported > to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this > information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I > feel like a drone.</span> There are at least two reasons it matters. One reason is that the information is valuable and people should expect to share the benefits. Many (most) grocery stores now issue "membership" benefits that can result in significant savings. The advantage for the businesses is that they get to track us and keep track of what we purchase. We often don't get benefits such as this from our online purchases. Another thing is that spammers have more accurate information about us so they can be more accurate in whatever your vulnerabilities are. I don't know the extent of the potential use of information gathered without our knowledge for evaluating us in terms of credit and such, but as far as I know there is no law preventing that. Quote
Guest Sam Hobbs Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 "Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message news:i5c4p4pjkess0mav2av9rhr0tvi9knedrm@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" > <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >>"Cody Jarrett" <artcody@jarrett.invalid> wrote in message >>news:oc52p41voep122idodopa842ac4vaeijno@4ax.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> >>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all >>> the crap it found compared to all the others.</span> >> >>That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that >>Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using >>Ad-Aware.</span> > > To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that > needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.</span> Note that I wasn't criticizing you but you are being critical of me by saying "simpler for you". Probably you will feel a need to respond with another criticism, and I will probably let you have the last "word". Quote
Guest ze7en Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 If anyone has the time to give Lavasoft a hand, the rest of the world will benefit. Whether or not you use Ad-Aware, many do who can't learn something new, and if they all start getting infected, it will spread to you, your fight will be more work... Read on. AA AE is actually finding a lot false positives in every OS. A couple weeks ago things started going bad with Lavasft for some reason. A while back you may remember they added a small grey popup to get people to by the upgrade to plus or pro. That wasn't even the first sign of problems, roughly 2 years ago they got some heat with the law. Don't get me wrong, I do know the full history of Ad-Aware as a product originaly started by Steve Gibson called OPT-OUT. As with all programs INCLUDING OS's, as they grow bigger, they grow DEFECTIVE, and there is no way around it. This new AE version is a pretty good IDEA and only that, what they have done might eventually work well on a smack-n-toss, with the directions of Windows, Vista and Ze7en, it's going to be very hard for them to work out the bugs. Especially since it seems they haven't been able to keep their web site stable for the last few weeks. I have found aa 2008 is working fine except for the dam nag screen, and the popups... sort of ironic, isn't it.... Anti-Spyware with NAG screens and POP-UPS.... Anyone hear any recent news on their court proceedings? How much trouble their in? I hope they pull through, too many people out there that don't know enough about computers to stay safe, and the more of them, the worse it is for the rest of us... Use file.net and bleepingcomputer.com and auditmypc.com to look up files and see what they are. You will get a lot of good ideas as to what should be done. BUT.... Even they run GOOGLE ads, be careful not to click on them, google promotes maleware ads, they don't care who they sell space to. DO NOT TRUST Windows Defender, I haven't seen it find one thing yet. I'm too busy to work on that one.... Enjoy............................................................................... Coal, a high carbon type called "Anthracite", is a word that comes from a Greek word we know as "Anthrax"...... Quote
Guest Sam Hobbs Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 As you say, Ad-Aware is not free anymore; we must pay for it either directly or indirectly. So Lavasoft doesn't need any special support. Ad-Aware is not an anti-virus program or anything such as that; it does not eliminate any software that propagates itself. "ze7en" <ze7en@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5228F5E4-AEFB-40D1-BE26-30501BEB490B@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > If anyone has the time to give Lavasoft a hand, the rest of the world will > benefit. Whether or not you use Ad-Aware, many do who can't learn > something > new, and if they all start getting infected, it will spread to you, your > fight will be more work... Read on.</span> Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.