Subfolder under TIF--"Content.IE5": What is it and how aaf..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

I have a subfolder under WindowsTemporary Internet Files folder which is
titled: "Content.IE5".

Under this folder are several other subfolders with odd names such as
OZ4RM101, GLIFSLAJ,SVT8UAFB, etc....the files in these have a variety of
extensions such as .js .jpg .gif .htm etc....

Can I simply delete all these CONTENT.IE5 subfolders without loss of
important data and/or programs?

They arent deleted when I delete my tIF files via Inernet Explorer-->Delete
files

Over the past two nights, I have gotten several Alwayup.Trojan alerts from
my Norton AntiVirus. the "infecting" files have 0 bytes and I simply selete
them manually.

But it might be a good idea to simply delete all those subfolders within
CONTENT.IE5. Are they disposable?

Thanks in advance:

-Eli

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Boot to Safe Mode and then clear your Temporary Internet Cache using the
GUI provided, Control Panel | Internet Options | General | Delete Files,
check the box "Delete all offline content" and then click OK and then
Apply. This should clear your cache including the various sub-folders
which are created in groups of four in the folder Content.IE5. Clear the
cache this way as this method deleted some files that are hidden when the
cache is viewed using Windows Explorer.

When you've cleared the cache check your system again for unwanted
malware.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:

> I have a subfolder under WindowsTemporary Internet Files folder
> which is titled: "Content.IE5".
>
> Under this folder are several other subfolders with odd names such as
> OZ4RM101, GLIFSLAJ,SVT8UAFB, etc....the files in these have a
> variety of extensions such as .js .jpg .gif .htm etc....
>
> Can I simply delete all these CONTENT.IE5 subfolders without loss of
> important data and/or programs?
>
> They arent deleted when I delete my tIF files via Inernet
> Explorer-->Delete files
>
> Over the past two nights, I have gotten several Alwayup.Trojan alerts
> from my Norton AntiVirus. the "infecting" files have 0 bytes and I
> simply selete them manually.
>
> But it might be a good idea to simply delete all those subfolders
> within CONTENT.IE5. Are they disposable?
>
> Thanks in advance:
>
> -Eli

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Just to add to Mike's advice ... if there are more than 4 subfolders for
CONTENT.IE5, than the malware has damaged IE's system or installation
files. Running IE's Repair Tool while in Safe Mode will rectify this.

Description of the Internet Explorer Repair Tool
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=194177

How to Start a Windows 98-Based Computer in Safe Mode
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=180902

MowGreen [MVP 2004-2005]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============


Mike M wrote:

> Boot to Safe Mode and then clear your Temporary Internet Cache using the
> GUI provided, Control Panel | Internet Options | General | Delete
> Files, check the box "Delete all offline content" and then click OK and
> then Apply. This should clear your cache including the various
> sub-folders which are created in groups of four in the folder
> Content.IE5. Clear the cache this way as this method deleted some files
> that are hidden when the cache is viewed using Windows Explorer.
>
> When you've cleared the cache check your system again for unwanted malware.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Mow,

> ... if there are more than 4 subfolders
> for CONTENT.IE5, than the malware has damaged IE's system or
> installation files. Running IE's Repair Tool while in Safe Mode will
> rectify this.

I'm sorry to have to correct you but that is incorrect. The sub-folders
are created in groups of four with the total number depending on the
current size of the cache with a new set of four being spawned for roughly
each 50MB of cache. I may have the wrong size (50MB) as it is a long time
since I played with TIF and since I limit my cache to 25MB in total am
never likely to see more than the four sub-folders but I can assure you
that having more than four sub-folders is not of itself an indication of a
TIF damaged by malware.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


MowGreen [MVP] <mowgreen@nowandzen.com> wrote:

> Just to add to Mike's advice ... if there are more than 4 subfolders
> for CONTENT.IE5, than the malware has damaged IE's system or
> installation files. Running IE's Repair Tool while in Safe Mode will
> rectify this.
> Description of the Internet Explorer Repair Tool
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=194177
>
> How to Start a Windows 98-Based Computer in Safe Mode
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=180902

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Mike writes:

<<<
I may have the wrong size (50MB) as it is a long time
since I played with TIF and since I limit my cache to 25MB in total am
never likely to see more than the four sub-folders
>>>>>>

Is there an optimal size for that cache? If I reset it from 50MB to 25MB, am
I likely to have some problems in regular PC usage?

Thanks in advance:

-Eli
*******************************
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:O9oveeXXFHA.2468@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Mow,
|
| > ... if there are more than 4 subfolders
| > for CONTENT.IE5, than the malware has damaged IE's system or
| > installation files. Running IE's Repair Tool while in Safe Mode will
| > rectify this.
|
| I'm sorry to have to correct you but that is incorrect. The sub-folders
| are created in groups of four with the total number depending on the
| current size of the cache with a new set of four being spawned for roughly
| each 50MB of cache. I may have the wrong size (50MB) as it is a long time
| since I played with TIF and since I limit my cache to 25MB in total am
| never likely to see more than the four sub-folders but I can assure you
| that having more than four sub-folders is not of itself an indication of a
| TIF damaged by malware.
| --
| Mike Maltby MS-MVP
| mike.maltby@gmail.com
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Eli,

Personally I see little point in configuring a large cache especially so
if a user is on broadband. There might be some justification for having a
larger cache, say 50MB if a user is on dial-up but then again I'm not sure
that even then there is much advantage in this since so many web pages are
frequently updated. Note also that Internet Explorer even has an option
to clear the cache when IE is exited - Tools | Internet Options | Advanced
where under Security there's a setting to empty TIF when the browser is
closed.

I doubt that you would experience any problems in setting TIF to 25MB or
even 5MB. I've never had any and would expect your experience to mirror
mine. Note also that having a small cache has never caused me problems
when using IE to download files significantly larger than the space
allocated to the cache.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:

> <<<
> I may have the wrong size (50MB) as it is a long time
> since I played with TIF and since I limit my cache to 25MB in total am
> never likely to see more than the four sub-folders
> >>>>>>
>
> Is there an optimal size for that cache? If I reset it from 50MB to
> 25MB, am I likely to have some problems in regular PC usage?
>
> Thanks in advance:

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Thanks Mike:

I do use dialup, but will try to reset the cache down from 50Meg to 25 Meg.


I rarely download any files larger than that

-Eli

******************************
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:eZt$D3YXFHA.3488@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Eli,
|
| Personally I see little point in configuring a large cache especially so
| if a user is on broadband. There might be some justification for having a
| larger cache, say 50MB if a user is on dial-up but then again I'm not sure
| that even then there is much advantage in this since so many web pages are
| frequently updated. Note also that Internet Explorer even has an option
| to clear the cache when IE is exited - Tools | Internet Options | Advanced
| where under Security there's a setting to empty TIF when the browser is
| closed.
|
| I doubt that you would experience any problems in setting TIF to 25MB or
| even 5MB. I've never had any and would expect your experience to mirror
| mine. Note also that having a small cache has never caused me problems
| when using IE to download files significantly larger than the space
| allocated to the cache.
| --
| Mike Maltby MS-MVP
| mike.maltby@gmail.com
|
|
| Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:
|
| > <<<
| > I may have the wrong size (50MB) as it is a long time
| > since I played with TIF and since I limit my cache to 25MB in total am
| > never likely to see more than the four sub-folders
| > >>>>>>
| >
| > Is there an optimal size for that cache? If I reset it from 50MB to
| > 25MB, am I likely to have some problems in regular PC usage?
| >
| > Thanks in advance:
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Eli,

As I mentioned I do not believe that the space allocated to the cache has
any effect on the size of file that can be downloaded. I regularly
download through IE files >100MB and my cache is set between 10MB and
25MB. Which depending on what I've been playing with.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:

> Thanks Mike:
>
> I do use dialup, but will try to reset the cache down from 50Meg to
> 25 Meg.
>
>
> I rarely download any files larger than that

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

I did decrease the cache size to 25 Megs, but I still get 8 Content .IE 5
subfolders.

Don't seem to have any problems just now though.

Is it still your opionion that this number of subfolders doesn't indicate
damage?

-Eli

****************************
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23JUWuIZXFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Eli,
|
| As I mentioned I do not believe that the space allocated to the cache has
| any effect on the size of file that can be downloaded. I regularly
| download through IE files >100MB and my cache is set between 10MB and
| 25MB. Which depending on what I've been playing with.
| --
| Mike Maltby MS-MVP
| mike.maltby@gmail.com
|
|
| Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:
|
| > Thanks Mike:
| >
| > I do use dialup, but will try to reset the cache down from 50Meg to
| > 25 Meg.
| >
| >
| > I rarely download any files larger than that
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Incidentally, I am actually on IE 6.0 SP1 with all the critical updates.
However the content folder is titled CONTENT.IE 5.

-Eli
****************************
"Eli" <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote in message
news:%232IQeQZXFHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I did decrease the cache size to 25 Megs, but I still get 8 Content .IE 5
| subfolders.
|
| Don't seem to have any problems just now though.
|
| Is it still your opionion that this number of subfolders doesn't indicate
| damage?
|
| -Eli
|
| ****************************
| "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
| news:%23JUWuIZXFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | Eli,
| |
| | As I mentioned I do not believe that the space allocated to the cache
has
| | any effect on the size of file that can be downloaded. I regularly
| | download through IE files >100MB and my cache is set between 10MB and
| | 25MB. Which depending on what I've been playing with.
| | --
| | Mike Maltby MS-MVP
| | mike.maltby@gmail.com
| |
| |
| | Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:
| |
| | > Thanks Mike:
| | >
| | > I do use dialup, but will try to reset the cache down from 50Meg to
| | > 25 Meg.
| | >
| | >
| | > I rarely download any files larger than that
| |
|
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

You need to clear the cache using the GUI provided. To see how please
read my first reply in this thread posted yesterday.

> Is it still your opionion that this number of subfolders doesn't
> indicate damage?

Yes. Now how about clearing the cache?
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:

> I did decrease the cache size to 25 Megs, but I still get 8 Content
> .IE 5 subfolders.
>
> Don't seem to have any problems just now though.
>
> Is it still your opionion that this number of subfolders doesn't
> indicate damage?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

I keep clearing the cache, yet in a matter of time 8 such subfolders are
generated. Happpnes only after a few minutes of browsing.

Perhaps I should add that I have IE 6.0 SP1--with all the critical updates--
installed. But that subfolder is titled: CONTENT. IE5

-Eli
**********************************
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:OXPqpaZXFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| You need to clear the cache using the GUI provided. To see how please
| read my first reply in this thread posted yesterday.
|
| > Is it still your opionion that this number of subfolders doesn't
| > indicate damage?
|
| Yes. Now how about clearing the cache?
| --
| Mike Maltby MS-MVP
| mike.maltby@gmail.com
|
|
| Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:
|
| > I did decrease the cache size to 25 Megs, but I still get 8 Content
| > .IE 5 subfolders.
| >
| > Don't seem to have any problems just now though.
| >
| > Is it still your opionion that this number of subfolders doesn't
| > indicate damage?
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

> But that subfolder is titled: CONTENT. IE5

Which is exactly as it should be. When you clear the cache
_using_the_GUI_ are you checking the box to delete all off-line content?
Is clearing the cache removing the sub-folders? If not just delete them
and then carry on. This really is _not_ a problem.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:

> I keep clearing the cache, yet in a matter of time 8 such subfolders
> are generated. Happpnes only after a few minutes of browsing.
>
> Perhaps I should add that I have IE 6.0 SP1--with all the critical
> updates-- installed. But that subfolder is titled: CONTENT. IE5

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

yes...I do check that delete offline content box...Those folders are
deleted, but new ones are rapidly regenerated. I currently have 8 such
subfolders. Even though I deleted them in safe Mode as u suggested in your
original post.
And even though I reset the cache to 25 Megs. Can I still assume its not a
problem?

Thanks again:

-Eli

*****************
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:uktqclZXFHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > But that subfolder is titled: CONTENT. IE5
|
| Which is exactly as it should be. When you clear the cache
| _using_the_GUI_ are you checking the box to delete all off-line content?
| Is clearing the cache removing the sub-folders? If not just delete them
| and then carry on. This really is _not_ a problem.
| --
| Mike Maltby MS-MVP
| mike.maltby@gmail.com
|
|
| Eli <meagain@outthere.invalid> wrote:
|
| > I keep clearing the cache, yet in a matter of time 8 such subfolders
| > are generated. Happpnes only after a few minutes of browsing.
| >
| > Perhaps I should add that I have IE 6.0 SP1--with all the critical
| > updates-- installed. But that subfolder is titled: CONTENT. IE5
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Agree that the amount of folders is dependent on the size of the cache,
I can't recall what size generates another subset of 4 folders, but, in
this case I've seen more subfolders generated by malware so as to
facilitate the downloading and installing of more malware.
The OP really *needs* to scan the system for the presence of "unwanted
software" ASAP.

MG

Mike M wrote:

> Mow,
>
>> ... if there are more than 4 subfolders
>> for CONTENT.IE5, than the malware has damaged IE's system or
>> installation files. Running IE's Repair Tool while in Safe Mode will
>> rectify this.
>
>
> I'm sorry to have to correct you but that is incorrect. The sub-folders
> are created in groups of four with the total number depending on the
> current size of the cache with a new set of four being spawned for
> roughly each 50MB of cache. I may have the wrong size (50MB) as it is a
> long time since I played with TIF and since I limit my cache to 25MB in
> total am never likely to see more than the four sub-folders but I can
> assure you that having more than four sub-folders is not of itself an
> indication of a TIF damaged by malware.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general,microsoft.public.windowsme.internet (More info?)

Mow,

I agree that in this case something may well be amiss since the poster
reports that having cleared the cache eight sub-folders are seen rather
than the expected four. As you have already recommended a thorough scan
for unwanted malware is called for.
--
Mike


MowGreen [MVP] <mowgreen@nowandzen.com> wrote:

> Agree that the amount of folders is dependent on the size of the
> cache, I can't recall what size generates another subset of 4
> folders, but, in this case I've seen more subfolders generated by
> malware so as to facilitate the downloading and installing of more
> malware. The OP really *needs* to scan the system for the presence of
> "unwanted
> software" ASAP.