Secunia CSI7
Create Profile
Our Commitment
Open Discussions
My Threads
Create Thread

Forum Thread: FreeDownloadManager FDM 3.0.852 (mis)detected as 3.0.848

You are currently viewing a forum thread in the Secunia Community Forum. Please note that opinions expressed here are not of Secunia but solely reflect those of the user who wrote it.

This thread was submitted in the following forum:
PSI 2.0 Beta

This thread has been marked as locked.
libove FreeDownloadManager FDM 3.0.852 (mis)detected as 3.0.848
Member 24th Nov, 2010 08:23
Ranking: 31
Posts: 71
User Since: 12th Feb, 2008
System Score: N/A
Location: N/A
I have FDM (Lite) 3.0.852 installed on this system. Properties -> Details on the fdm.exe file itself shows the 852 version number. But a full scan and a re-scan by PSI 2beta continue to insist that the same file path holds version 848.

Program Name:
Free Download Manager (FDM) 3.x

Security State:

Download Link:

Instances Found:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Free Download Manager\fdm.exe, version: 3.0.848.0

Last System Scan (localtime):
15. Nov 2010, 16:45

Operating System:
Microsoft Windows 7,

libove RE: FreeDownloadManager FDM 3.0.852 (mis)detected as 3.0.848
Member 25th Nov, 2010 12:33
Score: 31
Posts: 71
User Since: 12th Feb 2008
System Score: N/A
Location: N/A
Following-up my own post. "Re-scan" (several times over a couple of days) never detected that the old version had been completely uninstalled (manually, by me) and the new version installed (again, manually, by me).

However, a full system scan *did* detect that the version of FDM installed was up to the current 852 revision.

FYI, Secunia.
Was this reply relevant?
TiMow RE: FreeDownloadManager FDM 3.0.852 (mis)detected as 3.0.848
Dedicated Contributor 25th Nov, 2010 14:38
Score: 737
Posts: 728
User Since: 26th Jun 2009
System Score: N/A
Location: CH
Hi Jay

Speaking personally, I have always found the Re-scan Program option to be of negligible value - it has never - as far as I can remember - yielded any change in displayed information or status. I believe it's inclusion to be surplus to requirements. Much time and effort can be wrongly wasted in further examination of problems and subsequent efforts to rectify, as a consequence.

Whenever I have a discrepancy, or require a program change to be recognised, it must always be a full scan. It might take in the region of 8 mins. ( on XP) to complete; but this could end up costing less time than trying to resolve a problem that may not exist.


Computing is not yet a perfect science - it still requires humans.
Was this reply relevant?
libove RE: FreeDownloadManager FDM 3.0.852 (mis)detected as 3.0.848
Member 25th Nov, 2010 15:58
Score: 31
Posts: 71
User Since: 12th Feb 2008
System Score: N/A
Location: N/A
Conversely, I have found the individual program re-scan option to work fairly well, for programs which do not tend to stay in memory. I have observed that Windows works a little bit differently than UNIX in terms of when a file actually becomes replaced by an updated version of the same path after an installation.

In the UNIX world, an unlink() followed by a copy of a new version of the file onto the same path will immediately make all future references to the file path see the new file data, while still allowing all processes which already had the old path open to retain full access to the old data. Upon the last close() of any remaining open file descriptor pointing to the old data, the disk space taken up by the old data is finally released back in to the free space pool.

On Windows, perhaps because of how installers work, it seems that file paths which are open do not get replaced immediately, but seem to be scheduled to replace the old data whenever the last open reference to the old data is finally closed. I suspect this is installer behavior and not Windows file system behavior, but for PSI's purposes it doesn't matter - if something has the old file open, then an updated installation won't be seen.

This recent experience with FreeDownloadManager was almost unique in my experience with PSI.

Further, I disagree that individual program re-scan is excess functionality. Slower systems, and systems with much software installed, can take a while to scan. Indeed, my own system scans fairly quickly, *but* since individual programs *can* be re-scanned, it makes little sense to force the user to endure a full system scan. The code is already in the product, so any bugs in the way individual program re-scans fail to pick up changes that full re-scan will find, should be fixed in the product.

Secunia, how are you progressing on improving the individual program re-scan function?

Was this reply relevant?
Anthony Wells RE: FreeDownloadManager FDM 3.0.852 (mis)detected as 3.0.848
Expert Contributor 25th Nov, 2010 16:26
Score: 2445
Posts: 3,334
User Since: 19th Dec 2007
System Score: N/A
Location: N/A

Hi ,

As with TIMow , I have not found the individual programme rescan to be of much use in the past - pre Beta .

With , I find that the "results" display in many cases updates the programme "immediately" without any scanning - a modification in the Beta series - or it may be more delayed and that usually prompts me to run a full scan (between 2 and 3 mins) with or without reboot . By habit , I tend not to use the rescan so cannot say how improved it is in the Beta , but it did/has not worked on a couple of occasions ; it certainly seems more time wasting in my case compared to running a full scan . Maybe the "instant" display update is the equivalent of the old rescan ?!

Take care



It always seems impossible until its done.
Nelson Mandela
Was this reply relevant?

This thread has been marked as locked.

 Products Solutions Customers Partner Resources Company
Vulnerability Intelligence Manager (VIM)
Corporate Software Inspector (CSI)
Personal Software Inspector (PSI)
Online Software Inspector (OSI)
Technology Partners
 About us

© 2002-2014 Secunia ApS - Rued Langgaards Vej 8, 4th floor, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark - +45 7020 5144
Terms & Conditions and Copyright - Privacy - Report Vulnerability - Disclaimer