57 replies to this topic

[LS CalamityJane]

I'm stumped at this point. Don't know why you are getting that error message then because your definition file is fine.

I sent in a request for the Support Team to take a look here to see if anyone else is getting this particular problem. It might be Monday before they get a chance to see it.

[Linux2009]

I tried reinstalling the whole program as the core.aawdef can't be corrupted. I mean usually if two files are exactly the same size, the other one can not be corrupted.
Even MD5 is the same so the core.aawdef file isn't corrupted. It's just a fake error message that you have put there.
But back to the reinstallition.. I reinstalled the whole program. I removed it with control panel, then the temp and log files manually, then from registry, then I even cleared my web browser cache, as if there would have been something wrong, and finally I rebooted.
After reinstallition, I downloaded ad-aware through filehippo cos download.com was too laggy. The installition went well until the end. In the end ad-aware updated softwares with no problem, but still this def(inition) problem stayed .

Not so nice thing after all...


If the solution isn't gonna get found, I have one for you... What about if I would completely remove ad-aware and not install it again .

Edited by Linux2009, 24 May 2008 - 07:43 PM.

[LS CalamityJane]

You are correct. With the MD5 the same, your core.aawref is NOT corrupted. I don't know why you are getting that message that it is and I tried to reproduce it on Vista (just in case it is some Vista setting or feature causing it), but I can't make it happen.

I think it is an error of some sort you are getting from the program that isn't right.

I have one thought. Could you check to make sure of two things.

1. Check your DEP settings in Vista. If it is enabled, make sure that both Ad-Aware and Ad-watch (if you have plus or pro) are allowed? I'm not on my Vista machine right now, if you need instructions on how to do that let me know (I'm thinking you are probably already aware of how to do that)

2. Go to Start > Run and type in the box: services.msc

Look for the "Lavasoft Ad-Aware" in the list. Rightclick on it. Choose *properties* under the "logon" tab.
Make sure there is a checkmark in the box that says: "Allow service to interact with desktop"

Anyway, hang on while I seek some answers from the Home office in Sweden if they have gotten any other reports of this particular problem and any possible solutions. It may be Monday before they get back into the office.

[LS CalamityJane]

Another idea, let's have a look at your update log.

Program Data > Lavasoft > Ad-Aware > logs > update.log

I'll compare it to mine and see if I spot anything abnormal

[Linux2009]

Hi again,

No, this problem isn't caused by Vista as it wouldn't acces ad-aware to work 100 %. I went to services.msc (faster way is to press "windows + r"(I'm still not a newbie)) and there was already permission to access the desktop enabled.

Here is all the stuff of my update.log:

------------------------
24.05.2008 17:22:30: Initialized
24.05.2008 17:22:30: Server type: Free
24.05.2008 17:22:30: Fetching update xml from server
(compressed) https://free.2008.do...-aware01.datlzm : Compressed file not found, retrying with uncompressed version
(compressed) https://free.2008.do...c/news08.datlzm : Compressed file not found, retrying with uncompressed version
24.05.2008 17:22:31: Updated news file
24.05.2008 17:22:31: Server type: Free
(compressed) https://lavasoft.hs....ublic/closedlzm : Compressed file not found, retrying with uncompressed version
* 24.05.2008 17:22:33: Process is running as administrator
24.05.2008 17:22:33: Updating component(s) selected by GUI
24.05.2008 17:22:33: Downloading https://lavasoft.hs....8/aawserviceexe : (compressed) * (compressed) verification successful, 611664 bytes received
24.05.2008 17:22:38: Downloading https://lavasoft.hs....aw2008/ceapidll : (compressed) * (compressed) verification successful, 804200 bytes received
24.05.2008 17:22:43: Downloading https://lavasoft.hs....008/ad-awareexe : (compressed) * (compressed) verification successful, 3264840 bytes received
24.05.2008 17:23:07: Successfully updated dependency 1
24.05.2008 17:23:07: Sending terminate event to service aawservice.exe ( aawservice )
24.05.2008 17:23:07: Sending terminate event to Ad-Aware.exe
24.05.2008 17:23:07: Sending terminate event to Ad-Watch.exe
24.05.2008 17:23:07: Successfully installed dependency 1
24.05.2008 17:23:09: Restarting service aawservice

------------------------
24.05.2008 17:25:19: Initialized
24.05.2008 17:25:19: Server type: Free
24.05.2008 17:25:34: Server type: Free

------------------------
24.05.2008 17:25:37: Initialized
24.05.2008 17:25:37: Server type: Free

------------------------
24.05.2008 17:29:02: Initialized
24.05.2008 17:29:02: Server type: Free
24.05.2008 17:29:02: Server type: Free

------------------------
24.05.2008 17:29:02: Initialized
24.05.2008 17:29:02: Server type: Free

Edited by Linux2009, 25 May 2008 - 12:33 AM.

[Linux2009]

This is because of my Vista update isn't it?
Does your Vista 'machine' have every updates? All from microsoft.com/download also?

[LS CalamityJane]

This is because of my Vista update isn't it?

I don't think so

Does your Vista 'machine' have every updates? All from microsoft.com/download also?

Yes, including SP1 for Vista

[Linux2009]

This is because of my Vista updat isn't it?

I don't think so

Hunh? Then why are people complaining about Windows XP with SP3, writing that their ad-aware came buggy after getting sp3?

Does your Vista 'machine' have every updates? All from microsoft.com/download also?

Yes, including SP1 for Vista

So you are actually telling me that this is just because ad-aware is so buggy and lousy??? uh-oh

Edited by Linux2009, 26 May 2008 - 01:15 PM.

[LS CalamityJane]

You asked what is DEP?

Here is a good explanation about DEP in Vista:
http://blogs.technet...-explained.aspx

[Linux2009]

NOW I'm REALLY surprised!
I scanned with ad-aware and ignored the 'corrupted definiton' error message as I knew that it wrong. So when I scanned with it, it DID work!
Even it found only 1 infection, I think that it DOES work.

So, why do I think like that? Well, I scanned with superantispyware and Spybot S&D and they didn't find anything. I mean usually they find a lot but now they didn't find anyting so I think that's the reason why ad-aware found just one.

After all, this is quite logic if you think that the core.aawdef file is exactly the same size and there's just an error in ad-aware because it comes up with that.

I'll let you know if it does find a lot next time.

OK, hiyah

Edited by Linux2009, 26 May 2008 - 04:23 PM.

[LS CalamityJane]

It's fine to say what other programs you use. Most people DO use more than one anitspyware program. Sometimes that can cause conflicts but not with the two you are using - they should work fine together.

I still don't know why you are getting the file corrupted message. Perhaps closing the program made the difference?

[Linux2009]

Most people DO use more than one anitspyware program.

That's not what I ment. I ment that is it ok to tell from other tracking cookie scanners? I mean if people test those other tracking cookie scanners they notice "ok, this is much better than that beeeep ad-aware". And when they do that, they might spread this further. And after that they (at least some of them) quit using ad-aware and move up to those better programs.

So, are you still okay with this?

Edited by Linux2009, 26 May 2008 - 06:46 PM.

[LS CalamityJane]

Ad-Aware 2008 tested better than both of those, so how you define "better program" is subjective.
http://www.pcmag.com...,2307220,00.asp

Depends on what you are comparing. It isn't unusual for different programs to find some things others don't detect with the sheer volume of malware being released today, eventually all catch up on their various detections, but for this reason, that is why some (many) use multiple scanners.

But as for cookies, different programs will find different things, so many people use more than one program. Our program probably finds different stuff for the two you listed. It varies. Spybot advises you can actually block cookies with your browser settings in today's browsers (and they are right). So comparing cookies "finds" only tells little about the effectiveness against malware. We do encourage the use of "layers" of protection and multiple scanners is fine with us and we try to make sure that Ad-Aware is compatible with other programs just for that reason.

Spybot Search and Destroy.
FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions
Why do other anti-spyware applications detect so many more tracking cookies?
http://www.safer-net.../en/faq/37.html

Some anti-spyware applications have started to detect nearly every third-party cookie they find as a tracking cookie. In many cases, that is more or less correct, since many contain a GUID (Generic Unique Identifier).

But instead of bloating our detection database with thousands of cookies out there, we prefer recommending to change your browser settings a bit to block out all these third party cookies before they even come into your system:
[snip]

use the link to see the rest of the FAQ for recommended browser settings to block 3rd party cookies.
http://www.safer-net.../en/faq/37.html

[LS CalamityJane]

Just want to add: Cookies are not really a malware threat. To call any of these scanners a "cookie scanner" is misinformed. The real purpose of an Antispyware scanner is for true adware/spyware problems. For this reason we put cookies into their own category of a "privacy object". The critical objects is what really counts.

[Linux2009]

Just want to add: Cookies are not really a malware threat.

Yes, I know!

To call any of these scanners a "cookie scanner" is misinformed.

Ok, that I didn't know.

The real purpose of an Antispyware scanner is for true adware/spyware problems.

Yes, I knew that too. Though, I haven't seen your program do that. So is ad-aware then malware scanner or "privacy object scanner". I mean it seems to find only cookies, not bigger and more dangerous malware.

For this reason we put cookies into their own category of a "privacy object". The critical objects is what really counts.

Yes, yes, yes. I know, mom (Sorry, I just had to write this in here . If this is not what you want, please let me know.).

Edited by Linux2009, 26 May 2008 - 09:00 PM.

[Linux2009]

In my following message I'm not going to swear. I'm just going to make clear my oppinion and I'm sorry if this message hurts you. Don't take this too roughly. These are just words.

Anyways, here it goes:

Ad-Aware 2008 tested better than both of those, so how you define "better program" is subjective.
http://www.pcmag.com...,2307220,00.asp

Depends, depends. It might be (the "might" word is because I don't know) that the scan results truly ARE the best. No doubt if there isn't no doubt ^^. But seriously why did you come up with this in the end? You did (at least almost) the same mistake than what Symantec made. Shame on you . I mean they added new things and didn't consentrate to the bugs. No, no, no they consentrated to the friendly features and to make more, more and even more money (money isn't your head purpose I know but with symantec it kinda was).

So after all, what did you come up with? You came up with -in my oppinion- very good scanner if you look at the scanning results. But there are just so many bugs. They are really easy to fix and avoid, so why won't you? It isn't cool features and results that makes a good ad-aware. Good ad-aware would be ad-aware without bugs, don't you think? Then you guys/ladies would just be unnecessary .
In ad-aware SE it worked pretty fine. No big bugs. Just some minor bugs (these happend a lot with everyone). But why is Ad-Aware 2008 so buggy? Please give me your oppinion.

Here is more my oppinions:

Our program probably finds different stuff for the two you listed.

Yes and No. It finds the same cookies, but not the same malware (obvious as you correctly just explained it to others).

It varies.

Yes, you are correct. Have to admit.


OBS. These are all just my oppinions. Ad-aware users, please do not start to think "badly" about ad-aware because of this message, ok?

Edited by Linux2009, 26 May 2008 - 10:12 PM.

[Linux2009]

Oh, and now I'm having problems to get the scan to scan .
I'll let you know as soon as I get it to work.

[LS CalamityJane]

This is now headed off topic. Are you still getting the definition file corrupted message or not?

If you have the service off turned it won't scan, but that is another topic. Not for this one.

[Linux2009]

This is now headed off topic.

In that case, you can still answer through PM...

Are you still getting the definition file corrupted message or not?

Yes, it wont go away itself.

If you have the service off turned it won't scan, but that is another topic. Not for this one.

Yeah, I still know it. I turn it on every time I'm gonna start Ad-Aware.

Edited by Linux2009, 27 May 2008 - 01:14 PM.

[LS CalamityJane]

I still cannot reproduce this error with Vista SP1 and Ad-Aware. We have nobody else reporting similar. I suspect disabling the service may have something to do with it because both of those functions (updating and scanning) require the service to be running. I just got update .0086 and some software updates just fine with no errors.

There is a new MD5 for the new core.aawdef

If you need to check to see if yours matches you will find the MD5 is listed with each update that is announced both here in the forums (Under the announcements section) or in the Security Center on the main website.

That would be here:
http://www.lavasoft....itycenter/blog/

Click into the blog entry that announces the new update and you find the latest MD5 for Ad-Aware 2008 new update is at the end of that post.