Re: [NTO] Odd file in cache directory - spyware?
- Hi Harvey,
I just searched fat.db with google and like you said,
it is supposed to be there. The odd part is that
I can't delete it. I think I never noticed it before
because it was always deleted with the rest of the trash.
I found this definition for fat.db, and if this is its
purpose, then there should be no reason why it can't
be deleted with the rest of the cache.
"It's a hashed DB of the entries in the cache.
Allows faster lookup than spinning through the
directory, and isolates Netscape from different
> Although I don't remember ever trying, it's odd that you can'tThat's what concerns me!
> delete it if Netscape isn't running. That would most likely
> be the source of a sharing violation. It may be indicative
> of the presence of Ad-ware or a virus using the file to
> gather and transmit information of your web travels.
>OK. Did that, and now the size is down to 16kb. I think this
> In Netscape, Edit/Preferences, clear your cache and cache memory, shut
> down NS, disconnect from your ISP and try again. I can delete
> mine(Win98) but NS4.79 isn't my default browser.
is probably normal.
I just now tried deleting it. Now it deletes now too, and it gets
recreated when I start Netscape. This seems normal to me.
> When did you have your last Virus checkup? This overactive CPU and theMy Norton antivirus definitions are completely up to date,
> sharing violation could be a symptom that you are infected. The new
> viruses are getting smarter. They can range from Nuisance to being
> destructive, can log on to their host site and download virus updates
> when you're connected.
so if it is a virus it's one that sneaked by NAV.
I think it is fixed now anyhow. Thanks for pointing my nose in the
- Hi DA,
RE: Deleting fat.db in Netscape 4.79
I do not have any more ideas, though I tip my hat to Harvey
for getting you there! I am not using Netscape and thought, what
the hay, give this a try. Many times, it is a running, backround
process that can not be readily and easily deleted. This was not
one of those times.
Thanks, Harvey (aka hrs) for the input. I'll file that one
Christopher J. Spilker
> PS. This was rejected by Yahoo the first try, I spread out someFYI: I got both versions delivered by my ISP. I'm curious: what are the
> words just in case.
symptoms of being "rejected" by Yahoo.
On web-site I see:
3667 Re: Odd file in cache directory - spyware? hsavage hrs62930
9:57 am 4 KB
3668 Re: Odd file in cache directory - s p y w a r e ? hsavage hrs62930
10:07 am 4 KB
Regards ... Alec
hsavage wrote (Wed, 06-Nov-2002 10:07 [GMT-0500]):
> Alec Burgess wrote:Alec,
> FYI: I got both versions delivered by my ISP. I'm curious: what are the
> symptoms of being "rejected" by Yahoo.
> On web-site I see:
> 3667 Re: Odd file in cache directory - spyware? hsavage hrs62930
> 9:57 am 4 KB
> 3668 Re: Odd file in cache directory - s p y w a r e ? hsavage hrs62930
> 10:07 am 4 KB
I don't remember the exact verbiage but, something to the effect that
yahoo had rejected the first version of the email.
Could have been a glitch from my ISP, adding or deleting bytes, could
have been anything.