Us remaining Windows 98SE users have not been able to use definition update files for Ad-Aware SE since SE1R247

Whenever we try to start the program using SE1R248-SE1R252, we get the message Error while loading the Ad-Aware definitions file. when the program starts, and the warnings Definitions not loaded or invalid! and Definitions file not found or corrupted! in the main program applet.

Please check this thread for a much longer discussion of the ongoing problems:-

http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=18145

It appears that no-one at Lavasoft has been checking this forum let alone attempting to resolve the problem!

.. same for WinME :-/ - possibly some may regard non-supported OS' as not worth the effort since they have been at 'End of Life' officially for some time now (almost 2 years?). Doesn't stop the 'dead' from walking, however

Quite likely it's not intentional, simply that they wish to concentrate fully on the new product and if a few users drop away .. well, AdSE *has* been officially discontinued support-wise and not their prob if the doubly unsupported fall away via attrition. C'est la Vie - it's been a good run and the app worked well for many years (nice to have a trusted 'checker' for SSD when it was going through its growing pains to the present version, which works quite well on my main WinME machine and a Win98 fe that I use from time to time also).

It's a pity, but that's the way of the world all too often.

For an OT note, there's some activity in ############################ (_not_ final, but interesting )

+ thanks to those who guinea-pigged SE1R252 20.05.2008 for its compatibility with vintage OS' - one less #### to deal with


[Mod.edit / Raziel]

Hi Jaheira,
many thanks for this new thread and continued attempt to get a solution to this problem... your efforts are appreciated!

Regards,
dshell

Hi all
pls have a look to
>> http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-s...htm#trustworthy <<
maybe you'll find an alternative program.
Cheerio
Raziel

Please see my response regarding Ad-Aware SE here:
http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?s...ost&p=76973

It was discontinued some time ago and the reasons you still see updates available for SE is explained there.

I don't know what the many threads here about corrupted updates for SE means. Some users reported that it was corrected for them in a later update.

In any case, I have asked our Research Team if there is a problem with the SE manual updates file (I can't find any as the MD5 is correct as shown). However, don't take this as "extended support" for Windows98 and ME with SE because that is not what is intended.

A note: If you are using manual definition files you need to be sure you are putting them in the right folder (and not just unzipping them to your desktop). That will result in the error message some are reporting here.

While some of you have used the availability of manual SE updates as a workaround for continuing to use the expired SE version, it really isn't recommended because the SE version is very outdated and won't protect or even clean properly with it's outdated technology for today's more sophisticated malware. If you have an older Operating system (Win98 or ME) and are not able to upgrade to the new version of Ad-Aware 2008 latest version released today!), you really need to consider getting an alternate program that will run on older systems and not continue with the SE. (links are in my post above mentioned)

For those users with Windows 2000 and up, please upgrade your Ad-Aware SE to version Ad-Aware 2008 (Free, Plus or Pro are all available replacements)

From what I can gather, this issue only appears to affecting people using 98SE and ME. I never had any problems up until last week, and have downloaded almost EVERY manual update since the end of last December.


I can guarantee that I'm putting the file in the correct place! If I unzip the last good defs file I downloaded (SE1R246) into the same place, the program starts up without an error dialog box and works fine.


And if you're still using 98SE or ME, then you really don't have to worry about the more sophisticated attacks specific to XP and Vista that AAW2007 and AAW2008 are designed to deal with. Rootkits?! Are they possible under 98SE!? Even if they are, who'd go to the effort?!?! Due to its very small network footprint, I'm sure 98SE is more secure than XP or Vista. I can guarantee you that this old 98SE box I'm typing on now is airtight, even though I'm using an old firewall, virus checker and Spyware checker!

There's a definite problem with the last few definitions files when used with 98SE and ME. As I have said several times before, an incompatibility that stops them from being loaded has existed since SE1R248, and has not been picked up probably due to Lavasoft no longer testing them under 98SE and ME. I know we're all living on borrowed time here, and you lot have no obligation to those of us still using legacy operating systems, but the problem should be as easy to sort out as resting a flag or sorting out a checksum. It'd be a sad end to a long and venerable age of protecting 9X based systems if this was the end for Ad-Aware SE and 98SE/ME.

I just tried to load a bad reference file from within the program and received the following error message:-

Error while loading the Ad-Aware defintions file.
"C:\Program Files\Lavasoft\Ad-Aware SE Personal\defs.ref"

Gave me a thought. Could this problem be related to the definitions file size in some way? It has grown steadily from around 2Mb at the start of the year to about 3.4MB now. Could this problem have occurred once a certain size threshold was reached, with regards to 98SE and ME?

I can't see why this would cause an error condition, but there again, I haven't got access to the internal gubbins of AD-Aware SE!

Just a thought.............

@Jaheira

Does the unzipped def file (defs.ref) MD5 compare to what is listed on the update announcement?
http://www.lavasoft.com/support/securityce...?p=231#more-231
MD file of the file after unzipping it should be as follows:
MD5 checksum for defs.ref is b824181c23c1e7a49d520cda9951479e

Any definitions being downloaded today might be slow or come in incomplete due to increased traffic on the download servers with the new Ad-Aware 2008 release.
See the notice here:
http://www.lavasoft.com/support/supportcenter/

How do I find that out?!!

Is there a utility in 98SE that'll extract the value from the file, or do I have to grab a 3rd party application? It's a 128bit binary number in hex form, am I correct?

I do have a free utility for checking MD5 however, it doesn't work on Win98.

Try scanning the defs.ref file at this free online virus checker. It will give you the MD5 of the file at the end of the report.
http://www.virustotal.com/

I just downloaded MD5 Check Utility V2.31 from download.com (so should be clean, plus I uploaded it to Kaspersky to check, and virus checked it myself, and checked it with Ad-Aware SE using SE1R246 !!)

The checksum for the latest defs file (SE1R252) looks to be fine...............

Microsoft do not even support these old 9x OS (Im an offical MS Beta tester).

Moderator note: {offtopic comment removed}

Big 'O' Software's hkSFV should work even in Windows 98.

http://www.download.com/HkSFV/3000-2248_4-...cdlPid=10157350

Checks SFV's and MD5's

Off Topic posts removed.

Jaheira, If the defs.ref file MD5 is the same as posted then, it's not a corrupted file. So it may well be a problem with the program (and that would not be intentional). When SE updates are no longer going to be provided we would just announce that, not cripple the program to throw an error.

But since it is no longer in development or support, I don't know. I'm waiting to hear back from research their thoughts

Ok CJ, thanks for your help. Some of the others also experiencing problems appear to be getting a little riled, so come what may, this issue needs to be resolved! Even if it's a case of "that's all folks", then people can move on and put any contingencies they have into action........

But wouldn't it be bliss for all us 98SE dinosaurs if SE1R253 loaded properly tomorrow!!!?!

Well, for SE it is That's all folks since December 31 2007. I realize you have figured out how to postpone the agony by using the manual update method, so if it is a program bug I'm not sure they can address it. But then, the folks that update is intended for...well, I just don't know.

SE is obsolete and outdated badly for today's malware and you really need to think about getting something for your Win98 (or ME). This list of trusted Antispyware Products is here:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-s...htm#trustworthy

At least two of those offer a free version that is compatible for Win98 and ME
(Spybot Search & Destroy and SuperAntispyware)

That is what I recommend you 98 and ME users need to do at this point.

Just an update to confirm that this issue is being looked at but we don't know what is causing the problem. It may well be due to the increasing size of the definition file and it won't run on older systems such as 98 and ME as those seem to be the OS's most affected by this.

If you are a paid user of Ad-Aware SE Plus or Pro and cannot upgrade to Ad-Aware 2008, please contact the official Support Center located here:
http://lavasoft.com/support/supportcenter/

That is where the reports coming in on this issues are being gathered for review.

As I receive any further information I'll post it here. Right now it is still being looked at and we don't have a solution yet to post. However, I can confirm this is an issue as the Support Center has been receiving those reports and it has been brought to Management's attention for further review.

I would just like to say I have had enough of AdAware with all those file problems as it has happened many times before.

AdAware S.E now uninstalled from 98 S.E

Happy now Lavasoft???

Thanks for your help in this issue CJ!

I like strong matriarchal figures, especially when they wear cowboy hats!!

This is why I wanted a quick resolution to this issue.
I suspect that quite a few other people in my situation may be so disgruntled with the Lavasoft they will move elsewhere and never return.

I'm due a new computer in a few weeks, and am very likely to install AAW2008 when I get it. But this whole episode might well force many of us to use another spyware checker as a stop gap, AND NEVER RETURN.

Lavasoft really needs to keep us anachronisms happy for the time being...............

I only ever got rating 3 cookies when scanning anyway.

I personally think (SAS) Superantispyware is a far superior program anyway, so I am not too bothered about this loss.

I hope you don't get problems with AdAware 2008 when installing, updating, and scanning.

I'd be a shame if you went forever! I really feel an affinity for you, werewolf, gelert, dshell and the rest of the bunch who were having difficulties after all this commotion!

Lavasoft don't care about 98 or ME any longer, so it's a complete waste of time hanging around when there are other vendors that actually care about older systems unlike Lavasoft.

All the best to you and the others that have participated in this and other related threads.

As I have said many times, I think this whole debacle has occurred because of incompetence rather than intention!

Since I did my software engineering degree with many people who were barely literate, this doesn't surprise me! It's one of the reasons I decided to change direction in life, rather than degenerate into another illiterate programming nerd!

It's been good to know you, Eagleman..."a stranger is just a friend that you've yet to meet" an' all that...

Good luck...

Gelert.

@ Jaheira
@ bliss007
If you are not able to discuss without using abusive language, this forum
isn't the right.
Raziel

vulgarly posts set unvisible

I have a friend who runs 98 still and when I talk to him about updating he says it works just fine. Well thats ok, But he is giving hackers and spammers a direct link to his computer. These are the ones they talk about carrying the virus and bots to infect other computers. The programs by these spyware companies can not effectivly protect these computers anymore. So, if you think there is nothing wrong with the computer and it runs just fine. Then you are playing right into their hands. That is just what they want you to think. The days of malicious shutting down your computer are over. It is much better for them to use your computer to make a huge network.
Those programs are not even updated by MS anymore, because the only way to fix it is to write a whole new system.

Calamity and everyone has spent been trying to help, but the problem is no one can reproduce the problems. Everyone would have to have a windows 98,win2000, or winme to even try. You cant expect people to carry around 15 to 20 year old hardware.

Oh dear! Many apologies!! I plead temporary insanity due to alcohol induced psychosis!!

I know this forum is usually a pretty amicable place; looks like I went a little beyond the accepted norm........

Pray tell how he's giving hackers and spammers a 'direct link'?! If he keeps his virus and spyware checker definitions up to date and is behind a firewall, then he's a lot more secure than someone running XP or Vista who doesn't! The problem isn't people using older operating systems, it's people that don't secure their computers and have no idea about potential threats. In fact, I'd say that due to a much small set of networking services, the older operating systems are actually more secure than the the newer ones. Also do to the fact that relatively few people still use them it's not viable for hackers to craft exploits as way more people are using XP and Vista with much larger network vectors to attack. If you don't believe me, then read this following article highlighting that Windows 2000 is more secure than Vista!

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/arti...tests_find.html


If my machine was compromised, I'D KNOW. Period.


Ever come across the patch concept?! Would you rebuild a whole house just because your electrical wiring was duff?!


Hmmmmmm wasn't Windows 98 released in 1998 and Windows 2000 in 2000!?!?! Doesn't that make them 10 and 8 years old respectively?!

The main problem for legacy operating system users is the fact that the software available is really 'drying up'. People need to move on now, even though there will be more wolves waiting out there for the unwary.............

LOL, I partially agree with you.

I have read that article and I don't even have to click the link to go there. When they wrote that I believe he left out the fact the amount of viruses and spam has increased way beyond what it was then. So, really you can't compare it to xp and vista. Good to see another pc world reader though.

I do enjoy a good conversation or debate. I think that this could be, but people who can't play nicely tend to get involved, and I don't think LS would like that. So, I'll stop know. The post was mainly for people who doesnt understand the point of all the protection.
You're right about the if youre computer was compromised you wouldnt know. I wouldnt either if they got into mine. All we can do is hope that our protection catches or stops them.
Back to my friend real quick. No antivirus, I put Avast on it, cause it was killing me and it was the only thing he'd let me. Wouldnt let me put Adaware on it. I cant remember if there was a firewall. I think it there wasnt, I remember him telling me he has AOL and they take care of it.
My point was how many users are like this in the world. Most don't know preventitive care or care about it. It works so leave it alone,arggghhh, such an annoying philosophy.

Had to come back, saw something I missed. Direct link is a decription not meant to literate. Meaning that the hackers can get in with no problems and nothing stopping them.

Well, at least your friend knows someone who can give him a few tips!

A completely computer illiterate relative of mine didn't even understand that you could download programs from the net!

Could you at least make the last noncorrupted definitions file available again for those of us who were careless enough to have overwritten it?

In case it is of any use, I just tested Ad-Aware SE (free) 1.06r1 with definitions file SE1R255 loaded on a Windows 2000sp4 system. It ran with no errors and no definition file problems.