I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called Adware.Agent.
I googled it and am confused. Google produced several hits most indicated
it was a legitimate piece of software. However one said it was a nasty with
a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I should be concerned?

Thank you.

Jack Gillis wrote:

> I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called Adware.Agent.
> I googled it and am confused. Google produced several hits most indicated
> it was a legitimate piece of software. However one said it was a nasty
> with
> a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I should be concerned?

Malware can be called anything. Get a "second opinion" by scanning with
another antispyware program. I'm not fond of Ad-aware anymore. I like
Malwarebytes' Anti-malware program. There is a free version that works just
fine.

http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php

Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
Don't Panic!

"PD43" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Jack Gillis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called Adware.Agent.
>>I googled it and am confused. Google produced several hits most indicated
>>it was a legitimate piece of software. However one said it was a nasty
>>with
>>a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I should be concerned?
>
> Was it "adware.agent" or was there more to the name like
> "adware.agent.xx" with the "xx" being something else?
>
> Adware Agent is legitimate.

It was Adware.Agent

Lavasoft (Ad-Aware) Support Forums
http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/

I'd have Ad-Aware "fix" it if I were you.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

Jack Gillis wrote:
> I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called Adware.Agent.
> I googled it and am confused. Google produced several hits most indicated
> it was a legitimate piece of software. However one said it was a nasty
> with
> a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I should be concerned?
>
> Thank you.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:28 -0400, "Jack Gillis"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called Adware.Agent.
>I googled it and am confused. Google produced several hits most indicated
>it was a legitimate piece of software. However one said it was a nasty with
>a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I should be concerned?
>
>Thank you.
>
And this has WHAT do with XP? NOTHING.

Ask elsewhere

Farad'n wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:28 -0400, "Jack Gillis"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called Adware.Agent.
>> I googled it and am confused. Google produced several hits most indicated
>> it was a legitimate piece of software. However one said it was a nasty with
>> a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I should be concerned?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
> And this has WHAT do with XP? NOTHING.
>
> Ask elsewhere
>
Five responses above yours says you're either too slow, too late, probably both. Keep the
humour F@rt'n. Just one question for ya' F@rt'n, when you relax all the muscles in your face
and head, is your mouth open, or closed?

- WindPipe

"WindPipe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Farad'n wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:28 -0400, "Jack Gillis"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I just ran Ad-Aware 2007 and it found a critical item called
>>> Adware.Agent. I googled it and am confused. Google produced several
>>> hits most indicated it was a legitimate piece of software. However one
>>> said it was a nasty with a TAI of 5. Can someone please tell me if I
>>> should be concerned?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>> And this has WHAT do with XP? NOTHING.
>>
>> Ask elsewhere
>>
> Five responses above yours says you're either too slow, too late, probably
> both. Keep the humour F@rt'n. Just one question for ya' F@rt'n, when you
> relax all the muscles in your face and head, is your mouth open, or
> closed?
>

You miss the point. His continued obsession with a single point, while
making no other contribution whatsoever is a classic symptom of mental
illness. The fact that everyone else isn't in the slightest bit bothered is
of NoConsequence to him. It wouldn't matter if a hunred people had replied,
you will still find this ****wit posting the same boring post that he has
posted countless times already. Since ****wits always have to have the last
word, watch out for his reply to this (which will also say the same thing it
always does).