ADAWARE 2007

sasha gottfried · External Since: Jun 15, 2006 Posts: 15

I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06 used to
come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical objects."
This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I can't figure
this.........can anyone?

Thanks,

Marc

xrongor · External Since: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 6

"sasha gottfried" wrote in message

>I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06 used
>to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical
>objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I can't
>figure this.........can anyone?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Marc

ive often thought some of those programs include some 'threats' to get the
hit count up, even if the 'threat' was actually extremely low. that way you
feel like its doing something.

randy

Lord Maximus · External Since: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 1

sasha gottfried aka sashago.TakeThisOut@comcast.net,after much thought,came up with
this jewel:

> I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06
> used to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as
> "critical objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical
> object yet! I can't figure this.........can anyone?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Marc

perhaps your surfing habits are improving....then again....

max
--
My Pages:
Virus Removal Instructions:
http://www.freespaces.com/maxwachtel/removal.html
Keeping Windows Clean:
http://www.freespaces.com/maxwachtel/keepingclean.html
Tools: http://www.freespaces.com/maxwachtel/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply. nomail.afraid.org is
specifically setup for USENET.Feel free to use it yourself.
Always remember - only download files from Trusted Sites.

Mr. Arnold · External Since: Apr 30, 2007 Posts: 32

"sasha gottfried" wrote in message

>I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06 used
>to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical
>objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I can't
>figure this.........can anyone?
>

The machine and you cannot be attacked by cookies anyway. Maybe, they
decided that these cookies that were deemed *critical* are not *critical*
anymore.

sasha gottfried · External Since: Jun 15, 2006 Posts: 15

It's just strange that the previous version (which I reinstalled) still
comes up with 20-30 "critical objects" while the 2007 version comes up with
none!

"xrongor" wrote in message

>
> "sasha gottfried" wrote in message
>
>>I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06 used
>>to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical
>>objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I can't
>>figure this.........can anyone?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Marc
>
> ive often thought some of those programs include some 'threats' to get the
> hit count up, even if the 'threat' was actually extremely low. that way
> you feel like its doing something.
>
> randy
>

David H. Lipman · External Since: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 2245

From: "Mr. Arnold"

| The machine and you cannot be attacked by cookies anyway. Maybe, they
| decided that these cookies that were deemed *critical* are not *critical*
| anymore.

I'll agree with this assertion.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

kurt wismer · External Since: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 1522

xrongor wrote:
> "sasha gottfried" wrote in message
>
>> I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06 used
>> to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical
>> objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I can't
>> figure this.........can anyone?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Marc
>
> ive often thought some of those programs include some 'threats' to get the
> hit count up, even if the 'threat' was actually extremely low. that way you
> feel like its doing something.

when you're talking about counting threats, you're actually talking
about threat agents - that is things doing the threatening... naively,
the more a program detects the better, and if a vendor can add detection
for more of them then there's no real reason not to...

however, as you hint at, severity and risk are important considerations
too...

as such, you really can't criticize a product for detecting too many low
risk/low impact threat agents (which you seem to be implying), but
rather for detecting too few high risk/high impact ones...

the fact that some people only look at the raw count is not the vendor's
fault and what one person might see as trying to take advantage of those
count-checkers can also be interpreted as the vendor just doing their
job and adding the detection they're able to...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

xrongor · External Since: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 6

"kurt wismer" wrote in message

> xrongor wrote:
>> "sasha gottfried" wrote in message
>>
>>> I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06
>>> used to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical
>>> objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I
>>> can't figure this.........can anyone?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>> ive often thought some of those programs include some 'threats' to get
>> the hit count up, even if the 'threat' was actually extremely low. that
>> way you feel like its doing something.
>
> when you're talking about counting threats, you're actually talking about
> threat agents - that is things doing the threatening... naively, the more
> a program detects the better, and if a vendor can add detection for more
> of them then there's no real reason not to...
>
> however, as you hint at, severity and risk are important considerations
> too...
>
> as such, you really can't criticize a product for detecting too many low
> risk/low impact threat agents (which you seem to be implying), but rather
> for detecting too few high risk/high impact ones...
>
> the fact that some people only look at the raw count is not the vendor's
> fault and what one person might see as trying to take advantage of those
> count-checkers can also be interpreted as the vendor just doing their job
> and adding the detection they're able to...

i dont disagree... but the fact is that if a product produces no results,
even though this should make you happy, for most people this isnt very
satisfying and doesnt encourage the purchase of the product. so there is a
fundamental conflict of interest. the companies dont put their free
versions of software out there because they feel nice...

randy

xrongor · External Since: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 6

what exactly are the objects?

randy

"sasha gottfried" wrote in message

> It's just strange that the previous version (which I reinstalled) still
> comes up with 20-30 "critical objects" while the 2007 version comes up
> with none!
>
>
> "xrongor" wrote in message
>
>>
>> "sasha gottfried" wrote in message
>>
>>>I just ran a few scans with the new ADAWARE. The old version SE 1.06 used
>>>to come up with at least 20 cookies which were listed as "critical
>>>objects." This new one hasn't found a single critical object yet! I can't
>>>figure this.........can anyone?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>> ive often thought some of those programs include some 'threats' to get
>> the hit count up, even if the 'threat' was actually extremely low. that
>> way you feel like its doing something.
>>
>> randy
>>
>
>

User: inactive Posts:

AdAware 2007 is more technical than previous versions and requires considerable setup by the IT Manager or user.

To specify what you want to scan for (and remove) you have to go into Scan/Settings/Scanning
and set up the conditions for your scan.
Always select Full Scan from the scanning menu.

Spybot S&D is similar, in that it requires proper setup for it to ever work properly.
I typed out the instructions for that setup and it filled a whole page.
I thought it was significant enough to put on my website.
http://cxt_msp_shafl.members.atlantic.net

Go through all your setup menus on AdAware 2007 and I think you'll see it operating differently.

Cheers!
The Shadow Cool