mysterious folder appears can't delete


R

richard

This morning I noticed I suddenly had a new folder on a partition I use for
personal stuff.
The folder name is _318911_.
When clicked on, a dialog box appears stating the folder is unavailable at
this location
If ain't frickin available, then why are you showing it asswipes?
If I can't delete it, can I charge Microsoft a fee for invading my PC
without my permission? Just funnin.

Anyone know how to get rid of this damn thing?
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

This morning I noticed I suddenly had a new folder on a partition I use for
personal stuff.
The folder name is _318911_.
When clicked on, a dialog box appears stating the folder is unavailable at
this location
If ain't frickin available, then why are you showing it asswipes?
If I can't delete it, can I charge Microsoft a fee for invading my PC
without my permission? Just funnin.

Anyone know how to get rid of this damn thing?
That's probably a leftover from a .NET update.

Regular Microsoft updates don't do stuff like that.

It could be a permissions problem, with respect to removing it.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/12/09/9188755.aspx

"I have heard of a few cases where attempting to delete the randomly
named folder fails with a permission problem. I am not sure what
causes that type of permission problem in the first place, but you will
need to manually update the permissions on that folder in order to be
able to delete it. Tools such as Cacls or SubInAcl could be useful to
update these permissions if you run into this issue."

HTH,
Paul
 
R

richard

That's probably a leftover from a .NET update.

Regular Microsoft updates don't do stuff like that.

It could be a permissions problem, with respect to removing it.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/12/09/9188755.aspx

"I have heard of a few cases where attempting to delete the randomly
named folder fails with a permission problem. I am not sure what
causes that type of permission problem in the first place, but you will
need to manually update the permissions on that folder in order to be
able to delete it. Tools such as Cacls or SubInAcl could be useful to
update these permissions if you run into this issue."

HTH,
Paul
that's what I figured as I did have a "new updates" notice this morning.
maybe it'll go away with the next update.
I tried taking ownership and that failed.
 
B

BillW50

that's what I figured as I did have a "new updates" notice this morning.
maybe it'll go away with the next update.
I tried taking ownership and that failed.
No promise this will work, but did you try Disk Cleanup?
 
M

Michael Swift

richard said:
This morning I noticed I suddenly had a new folder on a partition I use for
personal stuff.
The folder name is _318911_.
When clicked on, a dialog box appears stating the folder is unavailable at
this location If ain't frickin available, then why are you showing it asswipes?
If I can't delete it, can I charge Microsoft a fee for invading my PC without my
permission? Just funnin.

Anyone know how to get rid of this damn thing?
I usually find delving into the black arts gets rid of these things, old
fashioned DOS can have its uses if you know what you're doing.

Mike
 
R

Rob

Did the author finally stop putting malware on computers when you
install Unlocker?
I have never picked up malware from the programme and it has been
scanned by 5 different virus malware checkers.
 
D

DanS

I have never picked up malware from the programme
.....nor have any other users.
and it has been
scanned by 5 different virus malware checkers.
However, there's no telling what others may add to it, like CNet
downloads, which most d/l's seem to require you to d/l the "web
installer", which will then install the program you actually want.
 
B

BillW50

....nor have any other users.


However, there's no telling what others may add to it, like CNet
downloads, which most d/l's seem to require you to d/l the "web
installer", which will then install the program you actually want.
All you have to do is an Internet search and discover that there is a
lot of talk about Unlocker containing malware. Even CNet confirmed it on
their forum.

http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6132_102-558941/unlocker-contains-malware/
 
P

philo  

This morning I noticed I suddenly had a new folder on a partition I use for
personal stuff.
The folder name is _318911_.
When clicked on, a dialog box appears stating the folder is unavailable at
this location
If ain't frickin available, then why are you showing it asswipes?
If I can't delete it, can I charge Microsoft a fee for invading my PC
without my permission? Just funnin.

Anyone know how to get rid of this damn thing?


I had something similar happen... a folder with leading "low dashes" and
containing numbers.

It was due to a USB external drive being unmounted improperly
and the contents of the folder were corrupted.

In my situation it was not a major big deal
as the corrupted folder was on my camera's CF
and I let my camera reformat the card.


There was nothing I could do to delete the folder.

CHKDSK /F reported it fixed the problem, but it did not.

I could not delete it from Windows...
nor could a Linux live cd touch it.


You might have better luck than me, so I'd try running chkdsk /f
and let the system reboot to run it
 
E

Ed Cryer

philo said:
On 11/23/2012 9:06 AM, richard wrote: ....
nor could a Linux live cd touch it.
Tell us more about this. It seems hard to believe.

Ed
 
D

DanS

Here is how I remember it a couple of years back.

Unlocker - Reviews
http://download.cnet.com/Unlocker/9241-2248_4-11115498.html?
messageID=10541098&tag=uo;uo

Neither of those links had any real information in them.

It's a good thing that the 'helpers' don't buy into every little 'scare',
as this application has helped out (10's of) thousands of people.

False positives are just that, false. It happens.

As a programmer, and participating in newsgroups related to programming,
I've been exposed to the problems of security programs and false
positives. There was one instance where someone's app triggered a false
positive read by 2 different products. All that was done to the code was
to change the order of 2 lines and then it passed with flying colors. The
two chunks of code were unmodified in what they did, only the order was
changed.

I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about this one. I don't
believe *this one* ever had a virus/trojan/or any other malware hidden
within it.

I still *do* believe that the CNet d/l'r or other d/l'rs that s/w archives
seem to now force you to d/l through, do. It's always best to go to the
authors website and d/l the s/w directly.

http://www.emptyloop.com/unlocker/
 
B

BillW50

messageID=10541098&tag=uo;uo

Neither of those links had any real information in them.

It's a good thing that the 'helpers' don't buy into every little 'scare',
as this application has helped out (10's of) thousands of people.

False positives are just that, false. It happens.

As a programmer, and participating in newsgroups related to programming,
I've been exposed to the problems of security programs and false
positives. There was one instance where someone's app triggered a false
positive read by 2 different products. All that was done to the code was
to change the order of 2 lines and then it passed with flying colors. The
two chunks of code were unmodified in what they did, only the order was
changed.

I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about this one. I don't
believe *this one* ever had a virus/trojan/or any other malware hidden
within it.

I still *do* believe that the CNet d/l'r or other d/l'rs that s/w archives
seem to now force you to d/l through, do. It's always best to go to the
authors website and d/l the s/w directly.

http://www.emptyloop.com/unlocker/
Yes I am well aware of false positives. I've been using antivirus
software since '97 and I lived through many false positives.

But unlike you, I look at the evidence. And just because you never had a
problem with Unlocker doesn't mean nobody else has either. And you say
there is no information in those links. Gosh... there are lots of
information.

For starters, the user accepted Unlocker to install the Babylon toolbar.
Their security software threw a fit. And rightly so! As the Babylon
toolbar has been known to redirect your browser to malicious websites.
So they allowed their security software to delete the offensive files.
And now Unlocker won't work. When they reinstalled again choosing not to
install the Babylon toolbar, it still tried to reinstall anyway. That is
very malicious!

And the second link, CNet investigated Unlocker's install and found the
authors' installer placed the Babylon toolbar into the wrapper. That too
is malicious. All of this is pretty damning evidence if you ask me.

If I had to pick between Unlocker and BartPE, I would choose the latter
hands down. Not only can BartPE do the same as Unlocker, but also do
zillions of other things as well. Even editing of the Windows registry.
Really handy when Windows refuses to boot because of a corrupt registry.

Now if one insists to run Unlocker, well what is wrong with using
Unlocker 1.8.5? Nobody has a security problem with that version. And
Unlocker 1.8.6 to 1.9.1 are like 5 times larger than 1.8.5. Why did
Unlocker bloat so much for? And this is from downloads from the author's
own website too.
 
D

DanS

Yes I am well aware of false positives. I've been using antivirus
software since '97 and I lived through many false positives.

But unlike you, I look at the evidence.
No, you look at web page forums.

And just because you never had a problem with Unlocker doesn't mean
nobody else has either. And you say there is no information in those
links. Gosh... there are lots of information.
There *is* a lot of information.....useless information, to anyone that
has half a brain.


For starters, the user accepted Unlocker to install the Babylon toolbar.
Their security software threw a fit. And rightly so! As the Babylon
toolbar has been known to redirect your browser to malicious websites.
So they allowed their security software to delete the offensive files.
And now Unlocker won't work.
Which could completely be a function of Babylon.

When they reinstalled again choosing not to install the Babylon toolbar,
it still tried to reinstall anyway. That is very malicious!
It didn't say that anywhere in the links you cited.

The poster said that when they went to try to install *a second* s/w
package, *also* d/l'd form the CNet website, this *too* had the Babylon
toolbar in it.

So, as a little experiment, I just d/l'd 'Unlocker' from CNet, and using a
Win7 install in VB, did a test install. Rather, I d/l'd and installed the
Cnet installer for 'Unlocker'.

There are two choices, 'Quick' or 'Express' install [whatever it was
called], and 'Custom'.

Under the 'Custom' setting, there's another checkbox for installing the
CNet 'additional' s/w.

If you select 'Express Install', it automatically checks the 'Additional
software'. If you select 'Custom Install', and uncheck the 'Additional s/
w', it *STILL* installs the 'additional s/w", and then gives you an
opportunity to install unlocker now or later.

The above was all done under the window tagged, titled, and labelled as
the CNet installer.

I firmly believe that the CNet d/l'r is what actually installed the
unwanted s/w. I also believe that this has been happening far longer than
you think, as the CNet info on the d/l'r says it's only been using the d/
l'r since July, but I specifically recall being presented with it far
before then.

....or, the user did not uncheck the extra stuff in the Unlocker installer.
(See below.)


And the second link, CNet investigated Unlocker's install and found the
authors' installer placed the Babylon toolbar into the wrapper.
No, it didn't investigate Unlocker. CNet claimed the installer for *Orbit
Downloader* installed the Babylon toolbar.

...."Our team did confirm that Babylon was offered through Orbit
Downloader's installation process, but that process was not affiliated
with or implemented in the CNET Installer itself and was developed
separately from Download.com. Hopefully this will clarify some things."...

Yes, hopefully that will clarify things for *you*.

That too is malicious. All of this is pretty damning evidence if you ask
me.

If I had to pick between Unlocker and BartPE, I would choose the latter
hands down. Not only can BartPE do the same as Unlocker, but also do
zillions of other things as well. Even editing of the Windows registry.
Really handy when Windows refuses to boot because of a corrupt registry.

Now if one insists to run Unlocker, well what is wrong with using
Unlocker 1.8.5? Nobody has a security problem with that version. And
Unlocker 1.8.6 to 1.9.1 are like 5 times larger than 1.8.5. Why did
Unlocker bloat so much for? And this is from downloads from the author's
own website too.
As the author explained....

v1.8.6 - Promotional Feature: Added fully optional shortcuts to eBay
during the installation. Simply untick "eBay shortcuts" in the choose
components page during install if you do not wish to have those.

and v1.8.9 - Promotional feature: Fully optional eBay shortcuts, Bing or
Quickstores toolbar depending on location.

So I d/l'd the Unlocker installer directly from the "Direct Download" link
right below the link for d/l'g through the CNet installer. The Unlocker
install *did* offer me a couple toolbar things, I unchecked them all
during installation, and they *did not* install.



Based on this test, I would have no qualms about using and d/l'g
'Unlocker', if necessary, but d/l it directly and bypass the CNet d/l'r,
and most likely, d/l from the authors website directly.

I would also advice to use this tool where required, but also advise to d/
l directly and to uncheck all options on install.
 
D

DanS

No, you look at web page forums.



There *is* a lot of information.....useless information, to anyone that
has half a brain.




Which could completely be a function of Babylon.



It didn't say that anywhere in the links you cited.
The poster said that when they went to try to install *a second* s/w
package, *also* d/l'd form the CNet website, this *too* had the Babylon
toolbar in it.
--------------------------------------------------------

Here is my correction. It *DID* say that in the link cited.

(I saved a draft on my post prior to Pan crashing. Pan crashed sometime
after my saving the original draft. The original text had the above
statement, but I edited it out somewhere between the save and the crash,
and didn't realize that had been retained.)

However, I'm sure they did try to re-install using the CNet installer, so
all bets are off anyway.

I stand by my other post....(everything below.)

There you go, before blowing a gasket and immediately jumping on my
mistake and completely disregarding anything further, I am admitting I
made a mistake (which was not fully proofreading my post prior to posting).

------------------------------------------------------

So, as a little experiment, I just d/l'd 'Unlocker' from CNet, and using
a Win7 install in VB, did a test install. Rather, I d/l'd and installed
the Cnet installer for 'Unlocker'.

There are two choices, 'Quick' or 'Express' install [whatever it was
called], and 'Custom'.

Under the 'Custom' setting, there's another checkbox for installing the
CNet 'additional' s/w.

If you select 'Express Install', it automatically checks the 'Additional
software'. If you select 'Custom Install', and uncheck the 'Additional
s/ w', it *STILL* installs the 'additional s/w", and then gives you an
opportunity to install unlocker now or later.

The above was all done under the window tagged, titled, and labelled as
the CNet installer.

I firmly believe that the CNet d/l'r is what actually installed the
unwanted s/w. I also believe that this has been happening far longer
than you think, as the CNet info on the d/l'r says it's only been using
the d/ l'r since July, but I specifically recall being presented with it
far before then.

...or, the user did not uncheck the extra stuff in the Unlocker
installer.
(See below.)


And the second link, CNet investigated Unlocker's install and found the
authors' installer placed the Babylon toolbar into the wrapper.
No, it didn't investigate Unlocker. CNet claimed the installer for
*Orbit Downloader* installed the Babylon toolbar.

..."Our team did confirm that Babylon was offered through Orbit
Downloader's installation process, but that process was not affiliated
with or implemented in the CNET Installer itself and was developed
separately from Download.com. Hopefully this will clarify some
things."...

Yes, hopefully that will clarify things for *you*.

That too is malicious. All of this is pretty damning evidence if you
ask me.

If I had to pick between Unlocker and BartPE, I would choose the latter
hands down. Not only can BartPE do the same as Unlocker, but also do
zillions of other things as well. Even editing of the Windows registry.
Really handy when Windows refuses to boot because of a corrupt
registry.

Now if one insists to run Unlocker, well what is wrong with using
Unlocker 1.8.5? Nobody has a security problem with that version. And
Unlocker 1.8.6 to 1.9.1 are like 5 times larger than 1.8.5. Why did
Unlocker bloat so much for? And this is from downloads from the
author's own website too.
As the author explained....

v1.8.6 - Promotional Feature: Added fully optional shortcuts to eBay
during the installation. Simply untick "eBay shortcuts" in the choose
components page during install if you do not wish to have those.

and v1.8.9 - Promotional feature: Fully optional eBay shortcuts, Bing or
Quickstores toolbar depending on location.

So I d/l'd the Unlocker installer directly from the "Direct Download"
link right below the link for d/l'g through the CNet installer. The
Unlocker install *did* offer me a couple toolbar things, I unchecked
them all during installation, and they *did not* install.



Based on this test, I would have no qualms about using and d/l'g
'Unlocker', if necessary, but d/l it directly and bypass the CNet d/l'r,
and most likely, d/l from the authors website directly.

I would also advice to use this tool where required, but also advise to
d/
l directly and to uncheck all options on install.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

I still *do* believe that the CNet d/l'r or other d/l'rs that s/w archives
seem to now force you to d/l through, do. It's always best to go to the
authors website and d/l the s/w directly.
+1

It's a bit of extra work, but it satisfies my superstitions :)
 
B

BillW50

In Gene E. Bloch typed:
+1

It's a bit of extra work, but it satisfies my superstitions :)
Wow you too? You both are far too trusting of strangers than I am. I
would have been more trusting of strangers back in my younger days, but
I've seen way too much over the years and I wouldn't now. And once the
author started selling out and including eBay shortcuts, I see red
flags. And the file sizes have taken a huge jump. There isn't a good
reason for this except it contains more code than just Unlocker code.

I still stand by my original comments regardless what Dan claims. Dan is
far too trusting of strangers for my tastes. And there is no way of
truly trusting of Unlocker unless you reverse engineer it. And I won't
bother, since while Unlocker is indeed useful, it still isn't a must
have utility. As there are lots of other things that I trust more that I
could use instead.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

DanS

In Gene E. Bloch typed:

Wow you too? You both are far too trusting of strangers than I am.
would have been more trusting of strangers back in my younger days, but
I've seen way too much over the years and I wouldn't now. And once the
author started selling out and including eBay shortcuts, I see red
flags. And the file sizes have taken a huge jump. There isn't a good
reason for this except it contains more code than just Unlocker code.
I still stand by my original comments regardless what Dan claims.
I didn't make a claim, you did....that Unlocker was malware/maleware
ridden and it was always installed regardless of whether or not you tell
it to.

I stated my hypothesis on what really *did* happen, did an experiment,
reported my results here, and stated my conclusion based upon those
results.

It's called 'science'.
Dan is
far too trusting of strangers for my tastes.
You are a stranger. I do not trust you. You were wrong, according to the
test results I saw for myself.

So I was right not to trust this stranger.

And there is no way of
truly trusting of Unlocker unless you reverse engineer it.
There is no way to know that of *any* s/w package, unless it's open source.

And I won't
bother, since while Unlocker is indeed useful, it still isn't a must
have utility. As there are lots of other things that I trust more that I
could use instead.
I never said there weren't other alternatives. I've never used Unlocker
myself either.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top