DavidR

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DavidR

  • Rank
    Newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    United kingdom
  1. Thanks for the response, and I will certainly add it to the Ignore list, what I couldn't understand was why the scan flagged them in the first place. When the comments section was empty, so no explanation why it was considered a security risk and to be placed in the Critical Object when the detection is considered, Relevance:Low and a TAC index:3 You say that adaware will make it possible to restore the reg data to the windows default, yet the act of quarantining surely would delete the entry and not restore to windows default. If it is considered OK to ignore, why then wouldn't these entries considered for detection, I know you have said if they deviate from the windows default, but surely the scan can check if that deviation is harmful or a potential risk. Thanks again to all those who took the time to respond.
  2. I'm aware of the limitations of the SE Personal version, I have been using AdAware for a few years. The paid for version would I assume also pick this up, but my post is relating to detections and I do feel this is a bad detection. This would seem to be confirmed by the Link SteveJ Posted (topic=883) thanks Steve.
  3. Thanks for moving it, now it is generating some responses.
  4. Bump, doesn't anyone read these forums ? This condition remains unchanged, and no response for 12 days.
  5. Over the last couple of weeks I have been having two registry keys detected as Vulnerabilities, now these I believe have been there for some considerable time and I can't see anything obvious the passing of the launching file parameters. I have continued to ignore them so they are scanned next time a definitions update is released half expecting the detection to disappear as happened some time ago with a registry detection that I also ignored. I obviously don't want to delete/quarantine registry keys as there is likely to be an impact, not that I run a screen-saver or frequently launch .reg files. The information belo, mentions to check the Comments: for information on the vulnerability, yet that is blank, so no help there in saying it is a vulnerability. AdAware SE Personal 1.0sr1 - Definitions SE1R172 22.5.2007 Name:Windows Category:Vulnerability Object Type:RegData Size:8 Bytes Location:regfile\shell\open\command "" ("%1" %*) Last Activity:25-05-2007 Relevance:Low TAC index:3 Comment: Description:General Windows Security Issue. Your system security may be compromised. The specifics of the possible compromised item are listed in the comments section. and Name:Windows Category:Vulnerability Object Type:RegData Size:8 Bytes Location:scrfile\shell\open\command "" ("%1" %*) Last Activity:25-05-2007 Relevance:Low TAC index:3 Comment: Description:General Windows Security Issue. Your system security may be compromised. The specifics of the possible compromised item are listed in the comments section. It would be nice if there was an easy to report possible false positives either through the right click option on the detection or on the double click more detailed information about the detection. So are these really valid detections and if so exactly what is the vulnerability ?
  6. Personally I haven't taken any action on this DiaRemover detection, ignore or quarantine as I believe it is a false positive. Another reason is what the DiaRemover (Diaremover is a rogue spyware that attempts scam the user into buy the product.) trying to get you to buy it, etc. so even if a valid detection it would be a minor irritation as I'm certainly not going to fall for any request/blackmail, etc. to purchase it.
  7. I have had the same detection after the latest update (which corrected yesterday's FPs). I too believe this to be a false positive as there have been no symptoms of this type of scumware (Diaremover) a rogue spyware that attempts scam the user into buy the product. Nor has Spybot S&D, Ewido, my firewall or avast! anti-virus detected anything. The most convincing thing is that there has been no behaviour like a rogue spyware infection and coming directly after an update to me is suspect.