Jump to content

hake

Honorary Members
  • Content Count

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hake

  • Rank
    True Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wigan, England
  • Interests
    Rugby League, Cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

6,556 profile views
  1. It is certainly slow with my pathetically feeble Windows 7 (64bit) AMD Sempron 3000 powered HP Presario 😉but I am not in a rush.
  2. Thanks to Google's policy regarding anti-exploit software, I have installed Opera and like it very much. A great deal of careful thought by Opera is very evident. Opera provides an extension which facilitates installation of extensions (such as Malwarebytes) from the Google store.
  3. I am sticking with MBAE 1.12.1.109.
  4. I am sticking with MBAE 1.12.1.109.
  5. hake

    CryptoCoin mining exploits

    The brower extension certainly helps browsing performance. That it can prevent crypto mining is thought provoking because other crypto mining blockers do slow things down. The effect is especially noticeable on older hardware.
  6. hake

    CryptoCoin mining exploits

    I was asking about the abilities of MBAE.
  7. Does MBAE already possess the ability to detect and block CryptoCoin mining exploits? I have found that browser extensions which are purpose designed to block such exploits incur a considerable performance penalty which is very apparent with slower hardware.
  8. "Google’s new policy against code injection into Chrome " Can Google prevent code injection into Chrome? More to the point, can Google assure its users that it will prevent exploits within Chrome? We need MalwareBytes and the like to act as Devil's Advocates as they did until this regressive Google policy appeared. How do we know that Google is not using or planning to use this device to conceal behaviour within Google Chrome that its users would not approve of if they knew? Is it or will it become a transparency blocker? By arrogating unto itself the job of protecting Chrome against malware and exploits, Google is reducing the randomness of the entity which hackers want to attack because they need only to evade detection by one antimalware software system. Anti-malware firms like MalwareBytes and Avast increase entropy within the workings of Chrome and so make it harder for the hackers to succesfully attack Chrome. Google is unwittingly seeking to make its browser less secure.
  9. If Google Chrome can be made invulnerable then very good. However, previous experience shows that nothing is completely invulnerable and the loss of extra protection afforded by a variety of protections which obfuscate the vulnerability of such exposed software as Google Chrome will enable hackers to concentrate on single targets which will henceforth lack multiple layers of defence. I am having second thoughts about trusting Google Chrome now it is being weakened by Google's arrogant policy of locking out the expertise of the likes of MalwareBytes, Avast and other experts in the field of anti- malware defences. Where will we be if a culture of complacency settles on the management of Google Chrome? Two or more heads are better than one.
  10. I see that even if I add my own shield to protect chrome.exe, it is cancelled the next time that MBAE starts. Is Google Chrome so infallible or so well protected by its own defences that users can safely use it with the confidence that MBAE bestows on them? I do not trust Google's Chrome to be its own Devil's Advocate and in any case the Chrome 'anti-malware' apparently does not deliver real-time protection against exploits. I will continue to use MBAE 1.12.1.109 (with modified HOSTS file). Using third party anti-malware solutions increases the entropy (randomness) of using any web browser or other vulnerable software. If Google thinks that it is a good idea to reduce that entropy by disallowing other's anti-malware, and moreover to provide it's own inferior anti-malware, then that is why I do not trust Google. Hackers will surely realise what Google has done to Chrome and that will only encourage them to attack Chrome with even greater vigour.
  11. Drat! It didn't work. I give up. I hope that when you guys fix the False Positive problem, us users of older versions of MBAE can restore the Advanced Settings option for Memory Patch Hijacking Protection for MS Office to enabled.
  12. I have contrived to ensure that MBAE 1.12.1.90, which I currently use with Windows XP, is now able to run with ALL advanced settings enabled without being disabled, except by me. No false positives or unwanted behaviours have yet been observed. I don't anticipate using a later version of MBAE with Windows XP. It was a bit of a surprise to find that the RET ROP Gadget Detections for applications other than web browsers did not cause problems. Office 2003 does not cause false positives with the process hollowing mitigations. I look forward to forthcoming MBAE version updates for more recent versions of Windows than XP.
  13. I am running MBAE 1.12.1.109 on Windows 7 and MBAE 1.12.1.90 on Windows XP. I have noticed that Memory Patch Hijacking Protection for MS Office becomes disabled when MBAE is started even though it is shown as enabled when default Advanced Settings are restored. This occurs on both Windows 7 and Windows XP. I am also using OSArmor 1.4 but the problem continues after OSArmor has been uninstalled.
  14. Alas, while MBAE 1.12.1.107 works with Windows XP there is a problem with Adobe Acrobat Pro version 6. An invalid file handle is reported while Acrobat is starting.
×

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.