Jump to content


Honorary Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cavehomme

  1. I fully agree with this suggestion. I'm working with xlsm files very often and during busy periods of the year they are open all the time. When executing the macros they take 10 times longer when MWB Premium is enabled, and often they crash.
  2. I was hoping to finally update from v3.8.3 but I'll keep it for a while longer. I was experiencing various issues with v4x including sluggishness and WiFi connection issues.
  3. That's very helpful, thanks. I've been running McAfee Total Protection on one Dell machine and now I know that the problem was!
  4. By the way, from a GUI design perspective, this is another example in current apps needing to take an extra step or two or more to do the same thing. Why not simply sho all three scans on the same dialogue / window rather than clicking on "advanced"? I think you got the v3x GUI just right and v4 is a step backwards...that's my 2c worth.
  5. Thanks. So Hyperscan became quickscan...but it seems to me that it takes longer, not timed it yet.
  6. Seems that the third scanning option of Hyperscan in v3x is no longer available in v4x ?
  7. Nice idea, but most of us need to crack on with our daily work and not end up beta testing below-production quality software. Don't get me wrong, I've been a MWB user since v1x probably a decade ago, but v3 and v4 releases were not tested adequately and customers took the brunt.
  8. There was a v3.8 link from a mod somewhere on this site. I installed it directly over v4.x without issues. It's getting signature updates but of course no program updates. There's also a v3.5 legacy version for Win7 and XP which might get better support than v3.8, perhaps a mod can comment on this specific matter?
  9. There's an issue with quality control and testing again. Same thing happened when v3 came out. Concerning your proposed workaround, mine is different: revert to v3.8 until at least mid-2020 by when hopefully v4 issues are ironed out.
  10. I've highlighted your text which I'm most concerned about, it means that MWB is still not a sufficient replacement for AV, or at least not for Defender. That's why I am running both, but I do also wonder that now we have just two choices for MWB status rather than three, that something subtle has been lost in the relationship between the two programs running simultaneously. In other words, my worry is that perhaps MWB does not know that it should delegate to Defender to resolve a problem, and instead may fight with it. Anyway, as far a v4 is concerned, it's not stable enough to run on my business laptop, this weekend it conflicted with my WiFi driver (same driver version for several months, so it's not an issue with an updated driver) and I spent an hour troubleshooting, initially thinking that the router had an issue. I've reverted to 3.8 and all is well again. Overall, I'm getting concerned that MWB direction is to compete with / replace WD rather than being just complementary to it. There are so many AVs out there, very well funded too, so there's no point in MWB competing with them, and there's no point in competing against Defender because it's now so good, but an extra layer to monitor and pounce is all that's needed. Loads of people are going back to Defender, so MWB would be better served by properly working alongside , or on top of Defender, rather than trying to replace it.
  11. I disagree too, hence trying to ensure I've got WD as the main detector and MWB picking all else up.
  12. ..so that suggest to me that losing the thoird options means that we've therefore lost some fine tuning in the co-existence of MWBP and WD...back to my original point!
  13. That's helpful, thanks. But why the change from 3 to 2 options, and what / why have we lost as a consequence precisely?
  14. Clearly there are multiple issues at play here. My 2c worth, as a casual observer with 30+ years of IT and related comms real-world experience: - F-secure is one of the most reputable AV solutions. However, nothing is 100% secure. - F-secure may or may not have a spam module, but regardless, nothing is 100% secure - phone and scammer related issues may be related to someone breaching the "nothing is 100% secure" reality. However, since the same issues seem to be appearing for many clients of your ISP (and you will only know about those amongst your PSC grouping, but they may exist much more widely), it suggests that there might be a breach at Frontier and / or one or more of their staff might be compromised. I stress the word might, it's only a suggestion. - Their replies, and your focus, seems to suggest that you might be both barking up the wrong tree and the issues lays elsewhere, as per my previous point. The only way you can be sure is by conducting a very detailed forensic examination of BOTH all affected customers AND the ISP itself. In the real world that ain't gonna happen, so the best suggestion for you is to try and claim some damages, but more importantly walk away from the source of the apparent problem, Frontier. If that's not physically possible because there are no other option, then try to investigate the feasibility of creating your own direct link to T1 networks like the ISP do, ie. your own local ISP. Good luck!
  15. Just to comment that I get similar false positives from several Chinese detectors for genuine, signed Microsoft .exe files, so no wonder that MWB and other legitimate software gets snagged falsely!
  16. Hi Exile, Thanks for the suggestion. However, previously in 3.x there were three options to co-exist or replace WD, but in 4x there are only two options. My point is the the missing option appeared to allow a fine-tuned co-existence between WD and MWBP (Premium). This missing option is - "Let Malwarebytes choose whether to register: Malwarebytes will determine whether it should be registered in Action Center. The program will not register when Microsoft Security Essentials is in use on a Windows 7 or older operating system. It will also not register when Windows Defender is used on a Windows 8 or newer OS." The remaining 4.x two options are to either a) replace WD or else b) run MWBP fully in parallel with WD. My concern about the latter is that this will lead to a fight between MWBP and WD whenever malware is spotted by both, whereas the third missing option suggests that MWBP would cede to WD whever WD decides to jump onto malware? Perhaps my understanding and expectations are incorrect or naive, but perhaps you can clarify the situation regarding these setting and my observations? Thanks, Cavehomme
  17. I've been a MWB premium users for many years. After the fiasco of PCs crashing for months when V3 came out, I hesitated to use v4 immediately. I tried it a few days ago and was disappointed that the "compatability mode" is no longer there, allowing MWB to properly run live with Windows Defender, although I understand the reasons for this. I've therefore reverted to 3.8 and will continue to run it until such a time as independent test results show it's as capable as I hope. For what it's worth mentioning, I also noticed some sluggishness with v4, but not the severe problems mentioned by the OP.
  18. Indeed it does work now, must have been down temporarily. Thanks.
  19. The Binisoft website seems not be active any longer. Is there a MWB page where I can access WFC to download please? When is WFC expected to be integrated into the MWB product, roughly?
  20. Just catching up and browsing, very informative answer, thanks Exile.
  21. Thanks Exile, I'm not an expert but I've used loads of 3rd firewalls over the years and I agree with you. Adding Binisoft / MWB to WF should deal with unsolicited connection attempts I would hope, but as you say, you can probably never be 100% sure in any scenario. Unless a person is a serious amateur or a pro, and configures their firewall very tightly with many rules, I cannot otherwise see yet a benefit to a third party firewall versus WF+Binisoft/MWB to the vast majority of users. I could be very wrong and I await any more explanations from any other user to highlight any issues.
  22. Why would it be less secure using Windows Firewall on a laptop connected to a public network when Windows identifies and sets the new network with a profile of "Public"? Why is this insecure and a third party firewall would be more secure? Genuinely interested.
  23. Hmm, perhaps that's been a bit pedantic? For me, an additional method to control WF is a "layer" 😉
Back to top
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.