Sign in to follow this  
Linux2009

Corrupt Definition File

Recommended Posts

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad-Aware 2008 tested better than both of those, so how you define "better program" is subjective.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2307220,00.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-networking.org/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-networking.org/en/faq/37.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :ninja: . If this is not what you want, please let me know.).

Edited by Linux2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/article2/0,1895,2307220,00.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 :ninja: . 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 :blush: .

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/support/securitycenter/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still the same prolbem.

I'll soon try to clear ALL the caches and then reinstall the whole ad-aware.

From C:\Windows too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it didn't work.

Still any ideas to solve this problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't. So far this is the only instance being reported in Ad-Aware 2008.

 

And this is not the same issue as Win98 and ME users are seeing in the old obsolete verison of Ad-Aware SE (I moved that reply to the SE forum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are still manually disabling and then starting the service maybe that is the problem. Try putting the service back on startup and *automatic*. Reboot your computer and let me know if that resolves the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are still manually disabling and then starting the service maybe that is the problem. Try putting the service back on startup and *automatic*. Reboot your computer and let me know if that resolves the problem?

I-AM-NOT-A-NEW-BEAN

 

I know that ad-aware doesn't work if the aawservices.exe isn't on. I know that if you turn it off, do something, and finally turn it on when you area about to start ad-aware, it works. I know that if it's "manually", then I have to open it manually. Before that ad-aware doesn't work.

 

No, it is not because of automatic, or manually, or automatic (late start). I've tried all those. I've tried all those without firewall or anti-virus eather.

 

Any more other ideas? Those I do tolerate.

 

It is annoying to see all the same helpful helps.

Edited by casey_boy
Mod. Edit. Casey. Removed repetitive text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the solution been found?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunh? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunh? :D

Linnux2009...

 

A quick read through this thread, and I can guess at two possibilities:

 

1) An ISP issue - some form of ISP anti-spam program corrupting (adding to / removing from) the download.

2) You've already checked for over-zealousness within your other AV / FW / AS programs....but are they ADDING something...? Something akin to a paperclip on emails, perhaps...? Change of time-zone...?

 

Both of these are HIGHLY unlikely - but have you checked nonetheless...?

 

My 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) An ISP issue - some form of ISP anti-spam program corrupting (adding to / removing from) the download.

2) You've already checked for over-zealousness within your other AV / FW / AS programs....but are they ADDING something...? Something akin to a paperclip on emails, perhaps...? Change of time-zone...?

No. Eather one isn't causing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what happends with Ad-aware 2008 7.1.0.10, after I've reinstalled the former version completely:

________________________________________________________________________________

1. First I open Ad-aware 2008 v7.1.0.10:

post-57817-1212507637.jpg

________________________________________________________________________________

2. I press the *Update* button:

post-57817-1212508010.jpg

________________________________________________________________________________

3. When it has downloaded the core.aawdef file for 5 minutes...:

post-57817-1212508063.jpg

_______________________________________________________________________________

4. ...this happends:

post-57817-1212508111.jpg

________________________________________________________________________________

5. After another another 5 minutes...:

post-57817-1212508165.jpg

________________________________________________________________________________

6. ...this happends:

post-57817-1212508198.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________

After this I closed ad-aware and went to download the core.aawdef from lavasoft.com.

When I was adding the core.aawdef file to my Ad-aware folder, I saw that it already existed there. It was even the same size ;) ..

So, I just opened Ad-aware again hoping that it would work now. When the ad-aware windowd popped up it showed the "corrupt definiton file" error again.

But this time it was the "reinstallition" that it showed in the solution area.

 

Uh-oh..

 

(Scan still works... it is just annoying that ad-aware puts the "corrupt file" message there. That is not the problem! There isn't any!)

 

 

Btw. I would like to know, what is the "Signature" for. In some people's signatures I've seen information about their computer and some are having lavasoftsupport forum rules. So what is the meaning of "signature" (my deleted signature propably wasn't your favorite. Darn, if I would have a screenshot of it, I could put it in here, or photobucket :D ).

Edited by Linux2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this