CeeBee
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by CeeBee
-
-
On 11/18/2016 at 0:34 PM, hake said:
Will MBAE 1.09.1.1254 time-out after 6 months? Hope it doesn't. I guess that it is reliable. It behaves that way.
As mentioned in another beta-thread, MBAE 1.09.1.1294 works on my legacy PC with SSE only CPU. Just installed it and .. so far .. it's all good. Hope it stays that way, as I have dropped 1.08 in favor of this 1.09 version .. fwiw.
-
1 hour ago, pbust said:
Yes, prices for existing subscriptions remain the same. The only difference is that in addition to the existing product, the license key will also work on the new MB3.
Okay, thanks. A bit off topic but I noticed that MBAE 1.09.1.1294 works on my legacy PC with SSE only CPU. Just installed it and .. so far .. it's all good. Any chance MB3 runs on computers with SSE only or is SSE2 and up required? Thanks.
-
Well, yes and no. As I don't plan to 'upgrade' to MB3 (footprint-overhead too great for my taste) and have a paid license till May 2017, I'm actually paying for the fun of running your betas. But, I have no problem with that at all. And thereafter I'll be freeloader if I don't renew. I'm not so fond of multi-function anything as the 'package' may crash if one function errs.
Question: I have an automatic renewal (1 License / 3PCs) for € 22.95. If I do renew, would the price remain as-is for a 3PCs MB3 license? Thanks.
-
Hi Pedro & Happy New 2017!
So now we have to pay to do your Beta-Testing .. or did I get that backwards? I mean, if I don't want to upgrade to MBAM 3.x, that's the only way to keep MBAE on my systems? I can manage, but, my wife traveling in a far away country gets a Beta and it blocks her system .. then what?
The way I see it, it would have been smart to keep MBAE as a separate product even as you integrate it with MBAM 3.x. And why not .. the product is there as a separate piece of software (as Beta). Think it over as, if not, you may lose customers to people like HMPA, et al. Cheers.
-
On 11/16/2016 at 0:04 AM, Arthi said:
Pre-sse2 processors compatibility is still not part of our automated build process. We will manually create a build for users requiring pre-sse2 support with all the latest fixes in a day or two and provide an update on the forum...
Any chance pre-SSE2 compatibility will be made part of your automated build process? Sooner rather than later, as, as it stands now, I'll keep my 2 legacy (SSE) computers on v.1.08.1.2572 with automatic updating unchecked and my Hosts file modified! I can't see a manually created pre-SSE2 build as something of lasting value...
-
I'm surprised that no MB Staff has commented! Although the number of SSE computer users (if that's indeed the issue) are dwindling as we speak, I'm sure there are enough out there to justify some MB attention .. as other premier software providers (coders) have indeed done and still do.
-
14 minutes ago, hake said:
...I also recommend that you uncheck the MBAE setting 'Automatically upgrade to new versions'...
I did this already and it should theoretically be enough. Regardless, I hope to hear back from 'staff' asap. I seem to recall that Pedro told me in the past that SSE won't be an issue (version-wise) down the road .. but that may have changed. We'll see!
As I said, maybe the issue is with the compiler used with v.1.09.x.x. This is what another software company (Macrium) said when my legacy SSE computers crashed:
"Sorry for the delay in replying. We have just released an update that now supports Pentium II/III CPU's. The problem was caused by updating our projects to Visual Studio 2012. VS2012 defaults to compiling code with SSE2 CPU instruction set enabled unlike earlier versions of Visual Studio. Apologies for the problems this has caused, and thank you for your patience."
The above FYI only.
-
Same issue here. I tried 1.09.1.1232 on my legacy computer with SSE only and it didn't work. Install went well .. then rebooted, only to get an error screen telling me that the service didn't start. I then reinstalled 1.08.1.2572 without a hitch.
It does happen that programmers "forget" to use a compiler compatible with SSE .. so, if this is the case, maybe release 1.09.x.x can be recompiled accordingly. If not, I need to find a way to block automatic updating.
That said, I can't see any warnings and/or information about a SSE2 requirement on the download and/or tech-spec pages of MB's website. Pedro!?
-
On 7/1/2016 at 8:53 AM, pbust said:
Thanks for the details. We found a bug that may be causing this. We're working on a new 1.09 build. Please stand by.
I just tried release 1.09.1.1232 on my legacy computer with SSE only and it didn't work. Install went well, then rebooted, only to get an error screen telling me that the service didn't start. I reinstalled 1.08.1.2572 without a hitch.
Can you confirm that version 1.09.x.x will run on older SSE only computers or is SSE2 now required? Thanks.
-
On 7/24/2016 at 0:11 AM, pdmike said:
Good old Visa sent me another card, so I have to spend three or four hours updating all of my auto-pay credit card information on various Web sites. All except Malawarebytes Anti-Exploit. I haven't a clue as to how to do that. I know I do have an auto-pay going on with MAE. It won't work with the old card number. I assume they want my money. I would like to give it to them in return for a very good service. How do I do it?
In case you haven't found a solution yet, I suggest you contact cleverbridge Customer Support <cs@cleverbridge.com> with all the relevant details. Cheers...
-
On 7/23/2016 at 5:27 PM, hake said:
Hello Pedro. I have tried MBAE 1.09.1.1140 and this problem still persists. The system state is the same as when I PMd the DDS.com output files to you on about June 30.
I just tried 1.09.1.1140 on one of my legacy computers (IBM Intel P3 CPU) with SSE only and it didn't work. Install went well, then rebooted, only to get an error screen telling me that the service didn't start. No time to trouble shoot so I reinstalled 1.08.1.2563 without a hitch.
Can Pedro and/or someone in the know confirm that version 1.09.x.x will run on older SSE only computers or (I hope not) is SSE2 now required? Thanks.
-
Found it. Strange sorting though as Acronis Image is listed under Backup Software. That said, several of the packages can do both file backup and image backup .. so one list may be better.
No worries, I have used Norton AV since the time of PC-DOS 2.x and would like to stay all Norton if at all possible. We'll see!
-
8 minutes ago, AdvancedSetup said:
...Symantec as of yesterday says they've addressed the BSOD as well.
https://community.norton.com/en/comment/7078671#comment-7078671
Of course if you have a solid backup plan then you can help mitigate issues that might arise.
Cheers and good luck.
The link referred to ends with: " If you continue to see Blue Screen errors even after updating the above files and folders, please following the instructions below". So, very much provisional and issued under great duress imho...
Once I get a firm-final notice of a good fix for 22.7 I may try to patch-upgrade my W7 computers. Probably install Avast! on the older legacy boxes.
As for backup software, unless I missed it, you don't have Macrium Reflect on your list. I used to be an Acronis fan .. but I migrated to Macrium Reflect some time ago. So far, excellent experience.
-
11 minutes ago, AdvancedSetup said:
All reported issues have been patched and updates are available to customers
https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.INFO3807.htmlHow can I verify if I am protected?
Ensure that you have the latest LiveUpdate content or the most recent product upgrade as listed in the ‘Update Information’ section of the Security Advisory for SYM16-010.
https://www.symantec.com/security_response/securityupdates/detail.jsp?fid=security_advisory&pvid=security_advisory&year=&suid=20160628_00Download the latest version of Symantec software
https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.TECH125408.htmlThanks, but the situation is a bit more complicated than what you describe:
https://community.norton.com/en/forums/norton-causes-blue-screens
https://community.norton.com/en/forums/norton-causing-bsod
So, even if I wanted to patch (i.e., upgrade to the current version), the situation remains muddled to say the least! And, as my legacy computers can not be upgraded (not compatible with the latest version of Symantec-Norton software), my plan to stay with a lower version (until recently fully patched and used as a Symantec fallback) is muddled as well.
https://community.norton.com/en/forums/support-nis-217011-discontinued
Having said that, there is no such thing as a 100% safe AV software. And it's dangerous to cross the street as well...
-
5 minutes ago, pbust said:
The best approach for these and other kernel level vulnerabilities are to apply the patch. In the case of Duqu kernel exploit for example MBAE will block payloads from executing in the vast majority of the cases, but the kernel exploit itself does execute.
Thanks Pedro. Too bad but all I needed to know.
As two of my legacy computers can't be upgraded to the patched version for hardware reasons I'm sort of stuck with unpatched AV software for same. So, I may have to shop for a different AV package. Oh well..
-
Certain Symantec-Norton AV products are reportedly unsafe due to vulnerabilities found here:
http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2016/06/how-to-compromise-enterprise-endpoint.html
And summarized by Symantec here:
Question: does MBAE 1.08.1.2563 (which I use) or 1.09 (experimental) kick in with its protection to take up the slack from these vulnerabilities? The technical side is beyond my grasp, but, the report states "These vulnerabilities are as bad as it gets. They don’t require any user interaction, they affect the default configuration, and the software runs at the highest privilege levels possible. In certain cases on Windows, vulnerable code is even loaded into the kernel, resulting in remote kernel memory corruption."
Thanks.
-
You are right, yes, my mind drifted for a moment. No, in as much as I'm aware of the merging (rolled into) aspects. And I did some beta testing for MBAE in the past. That, of course, is (still) a separate product.
From what I have heard, the merging partner will be MBAM rather than MBAE. From my narrow perspective, combining MBARW with MBAE would make sense, but, that may not be doable and/or may not generate the revenue expected from a boosted MBAM. Anyhow, nice taking to you and say hi to Agnes!
-
Good. But note that I think the overhead is on the 'much' side even for other computers used by me (4 all together), including a Thinkpad T430s Windows 7-64 with 8GB memory. It all adds up: MBAE, HPA, NAV, etc., etc. Trying to run lean machines...
Cheers.
-
18 minutes ago, 1PW said:
Can you give an extremely brief description of the system in question? CPU, amount of RAM and OS?
IBM PC 300PL with 800MHz PIII CPU with SSE only. 1GB RAM (2x512MB). Very much an old legacy computer ... with many services disabled or manual. FWIW.
-
43 minutes ago, 1PW said:
...see mbarw.exe and MBAMService.exe tasks running in the Windows taskmanager for an approximate total of 39MB (YMMV) and MB3Service running in services.msc. The tasks have an imperceptible load effect on a modern CPU.
Thanks for the swift reply. As I don't have a 'modern' CPU on the system in question the overhead is too great. I note that the MBAE requires less than 1/2 that to run. I know, apples and oranges. Depending on where the final product ends up, I may try that later. Thanks.
-
Just downloaded beta6 - build 0.9.15.416 (37+MB). Before installing, can someone explain the impact and/or footprint. Like what changes are being made and what services are loaded? What's the running overhead in MB. No privileged information, just in simple terms if that's possible.
-
John, many thanks. I'll stand by and see what's happens with the anti-ransomware-beta. If it turns out that this package relies on updates/downloads, maybe better it's packaged with MBAM rather than MBAE (which has a very small footprint/overhead) .. even though my 1st reaction would be to combine AE and ARW.
As for MBAE, I'm using it on 3 computers for almost a year and like it. If it works, hope so .. never had any mayor issues pop up. I run it together with HitmanPro.Alert 2.6.5.77 (free) without any conflicts.
-
https://blog.gdatasoftware.com/2016/03/28213-ransomware-petya-encrypts-hard-drives
Does MBAE protect against Petya Ransomware? If not, would MBARW protect? And, finally, will MBARW be folded into MBAE (the most logical way to go imo) once out of trial/beta? Thanks.
-
Postscript: I have in the meantime contacted 'Cleverbridge' and it seems that the matter will be taken care of .. by reactivating the automatic license subscription renewal. That would renew the current license as-is. Hope it works! If not, I may be back here...
HMPA prevents MBAE from Working ??
in Anti-Exploit Beta
Posted
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/hitmanpro-alert-support-and-discussion-thread.324841/page-522#post-2655910
The above thread regarding HitmanPro.Alert running concurrently with MBAE speaks for itself. In reply to a query I was told this: If you have HMP.A and MBAE installed and you are protecting a browser with both programs, HMP.A prevents MBAE from protecting your browser (or, injecting of the mbae64.dll). Only one program should protect it at the same time.
Okay, fine, however, if HMPA can do that what stops another 'nasty' program to prevent MBAE to work correctly? Beats me! The prevention referred to above actually relates to all programs shielded by HMPA and MBAE concurrently.