Hello,

I have recently upgraded my Ad-aware spyware detector to their
anniversary edition and it has flagged a DLL file as suspicious- the file is


C\WINDOWS\SMNST\WNASPNTDLL

I have read that the new version of Ad-aware flags some of windows critical
files ie false alarms -I would be grateful to know whether this DLL file is
a windows critical file or something more sinister- the software prompts me
to ignore once by the way.


Thanks in anticipation

Matt Woods

Matt Woods wrote:

> I have recently upgraded my Ad-aware spyware detector to
> their
> anniversary edition and it has flagged a DLL file as suspicious- the file
> is

> C\WINDOWS\SMNST\WNASPNTDLL
>
> I have read that the new version of Ad-aware flags some of windows
> critical files ie false alarms -I would be grateful to know whether this
> DLL file is a windows critical file or something more sinister- the
> software prompts me to ignore once by the way.

Did you make a typo with that name? The correct name should have a period
before the "dll" as in WNASPNT.DLL. The latter produces a link showing that
the .dll belongs to a Desernet Broadband Media driver. Do you have this
hardware?

You might want to scan with an alternate antimalware program such as the
free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM). Get it at
www.malwarebytes.org.

Otherwise, post your question in the Ad-aware user forums.

http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/

Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ

Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to the
best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I gather
from what you are saying this should be deleted ??
Thanks

Matt

"Malke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Matt Woods wrote:
>
>> I have recently upgraded my Ad-aware spyware detector to
>> their
>> anniversary edition and it has flagged a DLL file as suspicious- the file
>> is
>
>> C\WINDOWS\SMNST\WNASPNTDLL
>>
>> I have read that the new version of Ad-aware flags some of windows
>> critical files ie false alarms -I would be grateful to know whether this
>> DLL file is a windows critical file or something more sinister- the
>> software prompts me to ignore once by the way.
>
> Did you make a typo with that name? The correct name should have a period
> before the "dll" as in WNASPNT.DLL. The latter produces a link showing
> that
> the .dll belongs to a Desernet Broadband Media driver. Do you have this
> hardware?
>
> You might want to scan with an alternate antimalware program such as the
> free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM). Get it at
> www.malwarebytes.org.
>
> Otherwise, post your question in the Ad-aware user forums.
>
> http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/
>
> Malke
> --
> MS-MVP
> Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
> http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
>

Matt Woods wrote:

> Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to the
> best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I
> gather from what you are saying this should be deleted ??

No, you couldn't possibly gather that from what I wrote. All you could
gather was that I suggested you a) try scanning with a different
antimalware program; and b) post questions about whether this is a
false-positive in the Lavasoft forums.

Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ

Ok point taken-thanks Malke

Matt
"Malke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Matt Woods wrote:
>
>> Ok thanks for this- no I did not make a typo it is all one word and to
>> the
>> best of my knowledge my pc does not have desernet media driver- SO I
>> gather from what you are saying this should be deleted ??
>
> No, you couldn't possibly gather that from what I wrote. All you could
> gather was that I suggested you a) try scanning with a different
> antimalware program; and b) post questions about whether this is a
> false-positive in the Lavasoft forums.
>
> Malke
> --
> MS-MVP
> Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
> http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
>

"Cody Jarrett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
> the crap it found compared to all the others.

That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.

Yes, I believe he meant crud.

"Sam Hobbs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1AB31505-DCF8-4D8F-A518-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Cody Jarrett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
>> the crap it found compared to all the others.
>
> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
> Ad-Aware.

Cody Jarrett wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Cody Jarrett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
>>> the crap it found compared to all the others.
>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
>> Ad-Aware.
>
> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.
>
> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
> false positives than others.
>
> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
> Ad-Aware.


Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles.
Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
feel like a drone.

--
Dave T.


You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god. - Hirohito,
Emporer of Japan

Cody Jarrett wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Cody Jarrett wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Cody Jarrett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
>>>>> the crap it found compared to all the others.
>>>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
>>>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
>>>> Ad-Aware.
>>> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
>>> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.
>>>
>>> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
>>> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
>>> false positives than others.
>>>
>>> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
>>> Ad-Aware.
>>
>> Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles.
>> Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
>> to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
>> information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
>> feel like a drone.
>
> The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites
> I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies.
> All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option)
> get deleted using CCleaner several times a day.
>
> In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick
>
> Not worth worrying about.


I know what you mean. I was just being the devil's advocate and not too
well I'm afraid.

I guess the only point I was trying to make is that in the opinion of
many, privacy is an issue that in the future could become more important
than just the handling of cookies. Our President has demanded that all
medical records be placed on line, and he cites numerous good reasons
for wanting that. Makes me wonder. If you don't mind (and I know you
don't), I think I will opt to attempt to achieve total privacy up to and
including the stuff that's not worth worrying about.

--
Dave T.


You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god. - Hirohito,
Emporer of Japan

"Jack the Ripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Cody Jarrett wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> "Cody Jarrett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
>>>> the crap it found compared to all the others.
>>> That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
>>> Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped
>>> using Ad-Aware.
>>
>> To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
>> needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.
>>
>> It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
>> and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
>> false positives than others.
>>
>> Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
>> Ad-Aware.
>
> LOL, and you do know that the machine cannot be attacked by a Web browser
> cookie, since its only text and is not executable code. That's all
> Ad-Aware every found on any of my machines too, cookies. So, I stopped
> using it.


When I began using Ad-Aware, my computer had very limited resources; both
limited memory and processor. After using Ad-Aware the first time, I got a
very noticeable performance improvement, with emphasis on very. Later, when
I was having difficulty with a particular web site, I ran Ad-Aware and then
I was able to use the web site. Before using Ad-Aware, my session timed out
after about 30 minutes; after Ad-Aware, it took a couple of minutes at most
to get what I needed. If my Outlook Express took too much time to respond
for writing messages, I would run Ad-Aware and the delay would go away.

I understand your logic that cookies are just text. I am not sure what is
happening, but my guess is that the logic is in the web pages and that
processes the data in the cookies. That uses resources. I understand that it
does not make sense that such a thing could affect (infect) OE, but Ad-Aware
can remove problems that can affect OE, and most everything Ad-Aware has
removed in my system is cookies.