Durew

That was someone else. Although both need to check the EULA before making claims. Bruce does claim to use the enterprise version of MBAM so I hope the mods will move this thread to the right forum. (Or just close it.)

Since you are obviously representing a company, why are you not at the subforum for malwarebytes end-point protection? I think they are better at helping with business related problems. (As you mentioned you are using the enterprise version.) Regards, Durew

start computer force malwarebytes to update (don't let it whine about 'current', force it to check, thrid icon from the left next to "scanstatus"). Reboot.

The last update fixed it for me

O, maybe a nice subject for the next blog post.

It is definitely annoying. Glad it is fixed now. Kudo's to dev's for being so quick with fixing it!

Bad update. Inconvenient. I went for turning off malwarebytes (right click on tray-icon, exit malwarebytes) and trusting my other anti-malware defenses. Now everything is fine here. I'm actually quite curious as to what went wrong. In case it is relevant to the devs: my web protection refuses to start and my internet is fine. Regards, Durew

Hi, MBAM is trying to remove the ServiceHost of cyberreason ransom free. Could you look in to it? Regards, Durew FPlog.txt CybereasonRansomFreeServiceHost.zip

Hi, Today MBAM gave a false positive for ftp.snt.utwente.nl (130.89.149.20). This domain belongs to a dutch university. It triggered when I tried to update libre-office portable. The export of the log is attached. Regards, Durew foute blok.txt

Hi JamesMan, As far as I know the newer versions ask whether you want the free trail, allowing you to skip it. It does require paying attention during the installation and first run. If that didn't work you can end the free trial at any moment in "my account" to revert to the free version you want. Does this help you out? If you have any questions, please ask. Regards, Durew Edit: removing mistake in response to comment Porthos

Hi 1PJohn, I'm glad to see you are willing to go through the malware removal process. Malware removal is, as the topic described, covert in the malware removal sub forum to prevent non-experts from trying to help those with infected computers and possibly messing things up. As such I am not allowed to help you with removing the adware. Please start a topic in https://forums.malwarebytes.com/forum/7-malware-removal-for-windows/ as the post I refered to earlier described. There they can help you with any possible infection. Once your PC is declared clean I can attempt to help you further over here. I hope this helps and if you have any questions, please ask. Regards, Durew

Hi 1PJohn, If you think the pop-up is caused by an infection I would like to refer to : This topic explains you to get help (for free) with the removal of adware (and other malware). If MWB didn't catch it I'd recommend going there first. I have more confidence in the people of Malware Removal than any program out there. I hope this helps and as always: if you have any questions, please ask. Regards, Durew

Hi 1PJohn, The pop-up is from malwarebytes as far as I can tell. You should be able to turn it off in in settings->application and toggle "show malwarbytes notifications in the windows system tray" to off. To explain in a bit more detail what seems to be happening. When you go to a site, your computer connects to the IP-address of the website and recieves instructions on how to display the webpage. These instructions may, and usually do, involve loading stuff from other IP-addresses as well. One the latter IP-addresses was blocked by Malwarebytes, and malwarebytes informed you of this. As always: If you have any questions, please ask. Regards, Durew

Hey 1PJohn, As far as I can tell from your story you can still visit favorite site , so that is not the one being blocked. (that would make your favorite website look like this) The ip-adres traces back to an ad-server. (see website below). Malwarebytes is blocking some ads that your favorite sites are trying to display. https://ipinfo.io/38.134.106.124 I'm sure there is an option in Malwarebytes to silence the pop-ups. I hope I interpreted your story correctly and that this answers your question. If you have any questions, please ask. Regards, Durew

Hi msmithani, Thanks for you explanation. For added clarity I would advise you to keep this topic on 'windows defender is sufficient' evidence. Than start a new topic in 'general chat' for the role of north Korea in malware development and cyber warfare. Than start another one to propose and discuss good computing practices, again in 'general chat'. Although the topics partially overlap (you can still refer to other topics is needed) this division will make it easier for people to read and understand what message you are trying to get across. I hope this helps. Regards, Durew

msmithani, I'm afraid I lost track of what you are trying to say. First you state that windows defender is enough on its own, then you advise to use another anti-virus. Somewhere in the middle you advocate to use only one real-time security product and later on you recommend using an anti-malware program alongside an anti-virus program. Is this meant as a general security advice thread? Or is this tread about the performance of MB like you talked about in the beginning? I've lost it. Could you summarize what you are trying to say in a few sentences or preferably, one? Regards, A confused Durew

Just for next time: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/forum/123-website-blocking/ is the forum for these kinds of topics. That said, I can't acces the site either however it is not MB that is prohibiting me to acces the site. "An error occurred during a connection to www.swagbucks.com. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length. Error code: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" Edit: and now MB3 is stopping me from accesing the site.

Hi mrgecko, With the experts quite I'm going to throw in a suggestion. I once had a similar problem with MB forgetting scheduled scans in the past. I managed to fix it by removing MB with the clean-removal tool and reinstalling MB from the admin account. For some reason installing it with 'run as administrator' whilst using a normal user account didn't work for me. (I still don't know why) Currently it is the best bet I've got, I hope it will help. Regards, Durew

Hi OlafE, That sounds as a nice idea. I expect some caveats around 'self-protection' but the idea sounds nice. Until MB manages to implement your idea, the "Notify me if time since last update exceeds 24 hours" option (in the 'protection'-tab) can be turned off. This may reduce the number of intrusive messages. It is not ideal but it may save you some aggravation. Regards, Durew

@celee can you help here?

I highly doubt whether any AV company put any effort into keeping compatibility with MBAM in the past. I do now that if they don't put in the warning they get the angry customers the moment any conflict between the products arise.

The installer. As there is always a risk of incompatibility and some choose the free version because they want no more than a second-opinion scanner I think that the option to choose for the free version from the start should be possible.

Hi gtr33m, My first and probably very bad idea is to mess around with live cd's. Thus I'm going to try a summoning spell that hopefully summons someone with better ideas. @AdvancedSetup I beseech thee to use thine wisdom to help a poor computer user with his/her unbootable PC. I hope this will help. Regards, Durew

Dear all, Malwarebytes has a good reputation when it comes to detection and prevention of malware. What is bothering me is that when I am in a discussion with someone who thinks MB s*cks when it comes to detection I have very little to go on. I can, at times, explain why the testing methodology of the test they refer to is flawed. Against a lot of, perhaps flawed, tests in which MB is subpar I cannot pose a publicly available recent test preformed by an independent organization that show MB premium in in its supposed role: preventing infections alongside an AV and on it's own now av-replacement is claimed. MB3, the 'av-replacement' ended up below windows defender in the 2017 test of MRG effitas. The report stated to use recent threats, MB's specialty, and the malware doesn't seem to encompass a lot of viruses, if any. That MB was on its own is not a valid argument anymore with the 'AV-replacement'-claim. There may still be a flaw in the test, but with nothing better to put against it, I have little to go on. Telling that test X is flawed doesn't prove that MB is good, it leads to a "we don't know how good MB is" at best. There are some favorable tests, one in 2014 and one of 2017 that show good remediation scores. But that is not what the premium version is bought for and when MB fails a remediation test the argument is invariably "but MB would have prevented the infection because of layer X that was not tested here". The anti-ransomware test was small but showed a decent score. This however is not enough to show that MB can function as a valuable aid to an AV, let alone replace one. An old anti-exploit test shows a decent score but it was still only slightly above the median. As such I think there is a profound lack of tests that show Malwarebytes' real strength and its ability to live up to the claims. Thus I urge Malwarebytes to order tests from reputable independent testing facilities to publicly put MB to the test the way MB was intended to be used. Show how MB really compares to its rivals and how it lives up to its reputation. Kind regards, Durew referenced tests: https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/17-software-packages-in-a-repair-performance-test-after-malware-attacks/ https://www.av-test.org/fileadmin/pdf/reports/AV-TEST_Enigma_Comparative_Remediation_Testing_Report_May_2017_EN.pdf https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/MRG-Effitas-360-Assessment-Q3-2016.pdf https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Zemana_ransomware_detection.pdf https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/MRG-Effitas-360-Assessment-2017-Q1_wm.pdf https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MRG_Effitas_Real_world_exploit_prevention_test.pdf

Hi anth1225, I must be somewhat careful here as we do not support one AV over the other. Kaspersky does well in the tests. As for anti-virus or total protection. As far as I know the only meaningful difference generally is the firewall. What to do depends on your knowledge about computers and wallet. I've read that the windows firewall works fine and that an additional firewall is not required, however, this requires that the user knows what programs may en may not access the internet. (I use tinywall to make the control easier) If you don't feel comfortable making these decisions I advise going for the total security options. Emsisof Anti-Malware and Symantec Endpoint Protection have never given me problems with MalwareBytes. I did add exceptions to prevent MB scanning everything EAM does and vice versa. I advise looking at av-test to look at how the different packages score in protection level. Most of them should work fine with MB. You can always test this by trying the trial version of the package you have in mind. I hope this helps. Regards, Durew