catscomputer

Thanks John A - I'm glad to hear that as all the other issues I've had seem to be resolved with this latest release. BTW how do you know this is a known issue? I searched the "Known Issues" post, and about 5 pages back in this forum, and couldn't find any mention of it.

The "Edit" and "Remove" buttons appear to be greyed out in the "Manage Protected Applications" pop-up in the real-time protection settings. I could not see this listed in the known issues. I can add things and turn protection off and on (both with the slider and double clicking) but I cannot edit or remove anything. Not sure if this is something peculiar to my installation or not. MBAM 3.0.4 with Win 7 SP1 x64, Avast! free & ZAM. I did a clean installation when 3.0.4 went live.

I was beta testing MBAM 3.0 and currently have version 3.0.4.1269, component package version 1.0.39. Since I installed this when it was still beta software, do I need to uninstall it and reinstall the final release file? Or will it still behave as the final release and get component updates etc? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question; I've just seen notes for beta testers on other forums (for AV programmes) advising them to uninstall and do a clean install of the final release rather than try and upgrade, and just wondered if the same applied to MBAM 3.0. I hope my question makes sense!

Same here, ever since the last update about 30mins ago. Malicious Website protection is now blocking pop.gmail.com and smtp.gmail.com in outlook.

I'll keep it as it is with ChromeBrowser Thanks pbust. Spotify appears to be the only one of the many apps I have made a custom shield for to have had any sort of conflict /issue, so perhaps a dedicated FAQ for Spotify + MBAE would be a good idea. Love the concept of this software, thanks so much!

Yay we have lift off SpotifyWebHelper.exe with the ChromeBrowser profile launches Spotify with no problems. So this is a better/safer option than choosing Spotify.exe with the Other profile? Thanks.

Ah that explanation makes sense. Thanks. Phew! I was worried I'd been launching something malicious for all of this time before I downloaded MBAE! OK here is a snipping tool capture of my taskmanager: Which process am I best to add? In my AppData\Roaming\Spotify folder there is a process called SpotifyLauncher.exe too, but that doesn't appear to show in my taskmanager.

Yes I shielded spotify.exe. According to "properties" on the desktop shortcut for Spotify this is the process which launches spotify on the following path: C:\Users\[name of my PC]\AppData\Roaming\Spotify\Spotify.exe Where would I find "Spotify webhelper/helper child processes"? May I take it that this block is a false positive then?

Hi, as I explained above I did try the "chrome browser profile" and it gave the same result. The "other" profile will allow Spotify to launch, but that is the only one that will. (I tried browsers, media player & then chrome browser after reading the post I linked to above). I do have Hitman Pro but it is not in realtime (i.e. not HitmanPro Alert), It is an on-demand second opinion scanner which is not activated and uses no processes unless it is launched & running so I don't think it will be that causing this. I haven't run HMP in weeks. So does that mean it isn't actually malicious, but just a conflict or wrong profile selection issue? Is Spotify safe to launch? Thanks. EDIT - just tried Chrome broswer profile again and got the same result - MBAE blocks it.

I downloaded MBAE today and am using the premium trial version. I created a custom shield for Spotify, and initially set it to the profile "browsers" as per the FAQ. I got a pop up from MBAE upon launching Spotify as per the pic below saying it had blocked a malicious exploit. I searched the forum re MBAE & Spotify and I found this post: https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/170569-mbae-detecting-and-blocking-exploit-code-in-spotify/ > it would appear from the replies to the OP that this issue was resolved in version 1.07. I tried using "chrome browser" as per pbust's reply, but the problem still persists. I'm not sure if the block I am getting is the same as the poster in the other thread. It may be a completely separate issue. I find if I use "other" as a profile then Spotify launches OK (it is the only profile that allows Spotify to launch), but I'm worried that doing this is allowing an actual malicious process (i.e. not a FP / wrong choice of profile / conflict of some kind). I hope I have done the logs and zip file right. I couldn't find anything called the "MBAE user data directory" as per the FAQ, so I just zipped up the entire contents of the MBAE folder on the file pathway provided. (NB I did unhide hidden folders). My system specs are all in my signature. Incidentally, Spotify.exe is located here: C:\Users\[name of my PC]\AppData\Roaming\Spotify\Spotify.exe - with every other app I made a custom shield for the relevant exe file to launch the programme is in either program files or program files(x86), could that different pathway have something to do with it? Please could you advise if this is something to be concerned about, and if it is safe to use "other" profile in the custom shield for Spotify? Many thanks.

Thanks daledoc & btmp. You know I thought I saw that bit about trying "browser" first, but then when I went back and tried to find it again I couldn't, so I decided I must have imagined that I read that. (Clearly going blind in my old age!) OK I will try "browser" first for all my custom shields and see how that goes. I will keep all settings at their defaults though, especially as it's new software for me and this laptop. Thanks for all the help everyone. Nice to pop in and see old familiar faces too. This is such a good forum - I've learned TONS here.

NP Using the Help contents in the MBAE GUI, I have just added custom shields for Thunderbird & Skype, but I am unsure which "profile" to select for them of the options available. Would it be "other" for both of these?

Thanks gonzo. I am not running a trial version of MBAM Pro - I have had MBAM Pro for many years. Did mean MBAE in the second paragraph? In any case I'll remember not to turn the trial off. I fully expect to buy the premium version of MBAE after the trial is up unless I have any major unresolvable issues. I'll post in the support forum if there are any probs, but there are none so far. Thanks

Ah thanks Maurice. I have downloaded it and ticked the option for the trialling the premium version. I think MBAE will come in handy for times I do not use Sandboxie when browsing, and for other apps like MS Office 2013 which Sandboxie will not work with. I saw the FAQ regarding the workaround for use with Sandboxie and have implemented this. What I didn't see though was anything about adding exclusions to other security apps. I have added the MBAE folder as an exclusion to both MBAM Pro & NOD32 - are these exclusions necessary? Do I need to exclude Nod 32 or MBAM Pro in MBAE? Thanks heaps, Cat

I'm wanting to try MBAE just as an added layer to my current set up. I have three questions. 1. My current security set up is shown in my signature. Is there any problem with compatibility with anything listed and MBAE? I might be trying Avira Pro after my NOD32 licence expires, so that can be added to the question too. 2. I thought I would download the free version of MBAE first to see how it works before committing to the premium version. Is there an option to trial a the premium version in the free version download like with MBAM? 3. Is it possible to upgrade from the free to premium via the free programme, or do you have to download a completely different set up file if you want to upgrade? Thanks! P.S. I feel like it's been a while since I posted here last, but hello!!! to anyone who was about the Malwarebytes forum a few years ago.

Well I've found out the answer for myself - assuming last two days reflect what is normal. I ticked the option to receive notifications for when the database is updated and have 2 notifications in last 48hrs. The reason for my query is I was considering choosing the option to scan after updates, but wasn't sure if that meant the phone would be doing multiple scans a day (I know MBAM on my laptop updates multiple times a day) which is not what I want, or the other extreme if updates are very infrequent on an android. Question answered.

Would someone be able to tell me roughly how often updates occur for the mobile app? I don't mesn how often you can check for them - I mean roughly how many get released on average over 24hrs. Thanks! EDIT - just to add this question pertains to the MBAM app for android.

Thumbs up from me MBAM! I like it. The only thing I'm not keen on is the smiley face, but it's a miniscule thing and certainly something I can live with. In every other respect it's definitely an improvement. It installed smoothly and appears to be running well. Thanks!

I like the current version well enough but this really is much nicer! Much simpler, cleaner and easier on the eye. It's a lot better.

Just as a follow up to my first comment in this thread - scheduled scans are launching and completing just fine. I suspect it was the bad definition update that came just prior to the scan that stuffed the other scan up (the one that disabled website protection). It just happened to be the first scheduled scan since updating the programme earlier in the day. One thing though, and this is feedback not a complaint, my threat scans (manual or scheduled) are taking twice as long. Prior to the new programme version they took 10-11 mins and scanned 311700ish objects. Since the new version they are consistently taking 22-23mins. It would appear the scan is getting hung up on the last quarter of the heuristics scan. It takes 11mins to get to three quarters of the way through the heuristics scan, and then suddenly gets very sluggish at around 255000ish objects/the last quarter. It takes another 11mins to complete the last bit. This seems to be regardless of whether I am doing anything on the laptop/have other apps open, or whether the laptop is otherwise idle. As I said this is not a complaint and I don't even consider it an issue - I'm mentioning it simply because it's a bit strange and thought you might like to know about it.

Thanks Advanced Setup. I'm expecting it to be OK, but it isn't I'll do a clean uninstall/re-install, and if no joy I'll create a separate topic.

Updated to the latest version after the notification window of a new release. Thanks guys - it updated without hassles and is working well. However, I had a couple of glitches earlier which I'll bring to your attention - the first with the malicious website being disabled all by itself after an update, but this was resolved by manually updating the database version. I noticed all the posts on the forum about this - thanks for the extra prompt fix! I'm not sure if it is related to the bad update, but my scheduled scan failed. The bad update came through at 5.15pm (NZT) and my scheduled scan was set for 5.30pm. The manual update I did at 5.40pm re-enabled the malicious website scanning, but it did not stop the scanning progress bar on the Dashboard from showing the scan was working and "initialising", even though the scan had stopped itself and was reported to have failed. I tried a few things, and in the end this I solved the problem by manually starting a threat scan, which completed fine (though took twice as long as usual to do so?), and now the Dashboard now looks as it should. I will see what happens with my scheduled threat scan tomorrow. If works as it should then I guess I can assume the earlier failed scan and stuck scanning progress bar on the Dashboard was down to the bad update that came through just prior to it. I'll create a topic in the appropriate forum if it fails again.

Hilarious and so true! Oh my gosh I am dying to post this on a particluar forum I read because it is that forum all over!!! I shall resist though. There is plenty enough drama on said forum without adding to it.

Hey Mark. Your explanation about the low spec processors and insufficient RAM certainly explains a lot. Many old XP rigs had only 512MB or 1GB RAM. I think my old XP box had only 256MB RAM, but the less said about that POS old computer the better! It crashed and froze constantly. My Vista laptop had 2GB RAM and an old AMD Turion processor which was very low spec by todays standards, but gave me no issue running Vista HP. My new laptop is a beast in comparison though, hehe. I love Win7 and am in no hurry to upgrade. I'll only do so when this computer bites the dust or Win7 isn't well supported anymore. I think it'll be the former scenario rather than the latter.

Interesting topic. I have laptop running Vista and laptop running Windows 7. I'm just a home user and I don't know if it's just me, but I find there is very little difference between the to two OS. My Win7 is tons faster than my Vista laptop but the specs of the Win 7 laptop are a lot better, and so you'd kind of expect that. Also my Vista laptop is 8 years old. I admit I only came to use Vista right after SP1 had been released, so not sure what it was like before then, but I've not had a single problem with it to date. Serious question - why do people hate Vista so much? Have I just been lucky to have never had a problem with it? I preferred Vista to XP, truth be told. I've yet to use Win 8/8.1.