Virus Removal Help

[Richard Nixon]

I have an adware virus that appears embedded in my computer and I have been
unsuccessful in removing. I have used Adware 1.06 and Spybot for W98 but I
have had no success.

The adware program "seea.exe" seems to be lurking in the following path

windows/application data files, but when I go there, I cannot find this

executable adware.

Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Bill Baka]

I have an adware virus that appears embedded in my computer and I have been
unsuccessful in removing. I have used Adware 1.06 and Spybot for W98 but I
have had no success.

The adware program "seea.exe" seems to be lurking in the following path


executable adware.

Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Uh, not to seem unfriendly here, but get rid of any 95, 98, or ME
windows that you have and go to at least NT, 2000, XP, or 2003. The 95
series was based on code that was kind of DOS kludge coding.
Not my opinion, I hear it a lot.
Bill Baka

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Bill Baka" <[email protected]>

| Uh, not to seem unfriendly here, but get rid of any 95, 98, or ME
| windows that you have and go to at least NT, 2000, XP, or 2003. The 95
| series was based on code that was kind of DOS kludge coding.
| Not my opinion, I hear it a lot.
| Bill Baka

Bill:

NT4 is as dead as Win95. Some will say that Win98 was best in the Win9x/ME family. Some
will say say that WinME was the best. However telling him to dump the OS is not the answer.
Win98 might be a dieing OS but Win98SE still has merit and he should not be faulted for its
use if it makes him happy.

Richard:

Adware is malware but it is NOT a virus. Adware, Trojans, viruses, Browser Hijackers, key
loggers, etc., are all forms of malware or bad software. However adware does not self
replicate and is not considered a virus.

To remove that adware you may have to use a combination of software such as Ad-aware SE,
SpyBot Search and Destroy and BHODemon. You may have to be in Safe Mode to clean in
properly. You may have to use Pocket Killbox to help delete the file(s) associated with the
infector.

The file "seea.exe" can be a hidden system file and that's why you can't find it.

I'll guess at the following fully qualified path becuase you didn't properly provide it...


Download Pocket KillBox
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/files/spyware/KillBox.zip

Extract killbox.exe from the ZIP file.
Execute; KillBox.exe

Click on Tools --> Select; Delete Temp Files.

Choose; OK

In the Full Path of File to Delete box, type the fully qualified path to the file
"seea.exe"

C:\windows\application data\ ... \seea.exe

Select; Replace on Reboot

put a check in the box "Use Dummy"

Click The Red circle and a white X

When prompted to Replace on Reboot, click YES

If prompted to Reboot Now, Click YES

Allow the PC to shutdown and reboot.

Rescan with Ad-aware SE and/or SpyBot S&D.

 

[Art]

Uh, not to seem unfriendly here, but get rid of any 95, 98, or ME
windows that you have and go to at least NT, 2000, XP, or 2003. The 95
series was based on code that was kind of DOS kludge coding.
Not my opinion, I hear it a lot.
Bill Baka

Uh, not to seem unfriendly here but your reponse is both irrelevant
and ignorant. The user's OS has nothing whatsover to do with it.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Bodo Eggert]

Richard Nixon wrote:

That's because you didn't read
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0504.mspx

Uh, not to seem unfriendly here, but get rid of any 95, 98, or ME
windows that you have and go to at least NT, 2000, XP, or 2003. The 95
series was based on code that was kind of DOS kludge coding.
Not my opinion, I hear it a lot.

W9x is more secure than a WNT series product in its default configuration.
To secure a W2K, read
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/w2knew.mspx
If you do that and if you run as a normal user, you will be more secure than
with W9x, which has only administrator users.

 

[Norman L. DeForest]

Uh, not to seem unfriendly here, but get rid of any 95, 98, or ME
windows that you have and go to at least NT, 2000, XP, or 2003. The 95
series was based on code that was kind of DOS kludge coding.
Not my opinion, I hear it a lot.
Bill Baka

Not everyone has the money to do that. Not everyone has the computer
hardware necessary for doing that. I definitely don't. Do you know any
installation of Windows NT, 2000, XP, or 2003 available that will
successfully install and be usable on a machine with a 2.3GB hard drive,
64MB of ROM and no CD-ROM drive?