hake

Honorary Members
  • Content count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hake

  • Rank
    True Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wigan, England
  • Interests
    Rugby League, Cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

5,361 profile views
  1. I am very sorry Pedro. Of course it is a false positive. I would not expect Malwarebytes to release anything which was not of the highest standard of repute. I simply thought that you guys might wish to be aware that 'something' had triggered a false positive.
  2. On scanning mbae-setup-1.09.1.1346.exe , Avast reports "Error: Exception in macro viruses code. (42102)". I thought you would wish know about it.
  3. I am also finding that excluding mbae-svc.exe in AV configurations seems to promote more reliable starting of MBAE. This is just a subjective assessment but subsequent observations seem to support my hypothesis.
  4. I get this taking too long to load thing too. My PC is rather old but runs Windows 7 (64bit) quite well. I find that allowing a few extra seconds before logging on at startup helps prevent it. MBAE seems sensitive to the startup rush of activity with both Windows 7 and Windows XP.
  5. Thank you nukead. That tells me what I wanted to know.
  6. Is it correct to assume that versions of MBAE pushed out as automatic updates may be regarded as stable? I am assuming that MBAE 1.9.1.1291 and 1.09.1.1334 are examples of stable releases whereas MBAE versions downloadable for manual installation between those two stable versions are for beta evaluation purposes.
  7. I'm glad I am protected by MBAE.
  8. It does not recover after a reboot. I hope to visit the old codger whose PC it is next week. Is your diagnostics data logging software the same as it was a year ago? I tried uninstalling and reinstalling MBAE but without success. I removed MBAE and enabled EMET 5.2 for web browsers pending that next visit. The only web browser in use is Google Chrome which self-updates. I am puzzled because I did a system restore to the time when I last attended the system and MBAE was working. After the system restore, MBAE still did not behave as it should. MalwareBytes AntiRansomware and MBAM 2 Free both work correctly.
  9. I have not yet taken the plunge to replace MBAM2 with MBAM3. I am waiting to see that MBAM3's reported teething issues have subsided before migrating people who I support who use MBAE Premium over to MBAM3 (some of them live 50 miles away from me). Is there a time limit on MBAE Premium user's eligibility?
  10. Many months ago, I installed MBAE Free on a Windows 7 laptop belonging to a friend who lives in a care home. EMET 5.2 is also installed but browsers are strictly omitted from EMET's protection list and Java is absent from the system. Yesterday I noticed that the MBAE icon was absent from the system tray at the bottom left of the display. Task Manager showed that the MBAE service and mbae.exe were both running but i was unable to verify if MBAE protection was active. I was not able to make the MBAE GUI appear. Has MBAE recently been modified to behave this way when EMET is installed?
  11. MBAE 1.9.1.1291 displays its GUI after updating. This confused and alarmed a few users for whom the name Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit is not one they are over-familiar with. I received several phone calls from people I support and I had to reassure them that the behaviour was not sinister and most definitely NOT malware.
  12. I now have a comprehensive handle on the release of MBAM3. The issues I wrote about above are now understood and can be worked around. It only remains to get confirmation that future standalone MBAE versions will not expire after 6 months.
  13. Does 'Perpetual Beta' mean that a Beta version will in future not cease working after 6 months as we have been accustomed to but will continue to function perpetually? I notice that MBAE Beta version numbers 1.9.1.1266 and 1.09.1.1280 differ in the second part of the version number, i.e. 09 as compared with 9. Is there any significance in this?
  14. The evidence is that MBAM3 and Outpost Firewall have significant incompatibilities. Remove Outpost and MBAM3 behaves as one would hope. In my particular case, I am sticking with Outpost as I value its capabilities to enable such things as DNS protection. I am looking for another firewall though. It seems obvious that the cessation of the development of Outpost means that it will never be tweaked to accommodate MBAM3 and subsequent versions.