Jump to content


Honorary Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hake

  • Rank
    True Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wigan, England
  • Interests
    Rugby League, Cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

7,385 profile views
  1. Thanks exile360. All those extra protections are signs that Malwarebytes is keeping its light under a bushel. I guess that it must have been doing this for quite a while.
  2. @AndrewPP: EMET 5.52 is still useful with Windows 7. @Living_Computer: MBAE won't let me.
  3. I happily use MBAE on Windows XP SP3 running on a pre SSE2 AMD Athlon XP 3000+ processor which lacks hardware DEP. I run MBAE alongside EMET 4.1u1 but the two anti-exploit systems do not protect the same applications. EMET protects svchost.exe as well as a number of applications not protected by MBAE I also run Comodo Firewall Firewall which detects the following types of attack: Detection of Buffer Overflows which occur in the STACK memory, Detection of Buffer Overflows which occur in the HEAP memory, Detection of ret2libc attacks, Detection of corrupted/bad SEH Chains In addition, I use Avast Free 10.4.2233, OSArmor 1.4.3 and Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro 9.3. I am confident that I am doing my due diligence to prevent my XP system from being a general security liability for others. This incarnation of Windows XP has been in use since May 2006 and has yet to experience any intrusion or malware activity. Comodo Memory Firewall can still be downloaded and is easy to install and manage. It is also useful on XP systems with hardware DEP. It was initially called Comodo Memory Guardian but some chump at Comodo had the bright idea to change the name and so confused many people. It has no firewall functionality.
  4. I have read that MBAE wil now operate with Malwarebytes Free also installed. Is this correct?
  5. Thank you exile360 for your trouble and interest. I have been trying to get my head round the uncertainty of the operation of ASLR with Windows 8, 8.1 and 10. I think that the issue is centred round the difficulty of forcing ASLR for unsupported (old) applications. There is no authoritative opinion on this subject and many comments on the web are dated around the end of 2017. The really strange thing is that Windows 7 is exempt from the issues. I use EMET 5.52 to enable bottom up ASLR for as many running processes in Windows 7 as I can without any adverse effects. Google Chrome 76 accepts injection of EMET 5.52's emet64.dll. I can thus assure myself of adequate ASLR entropy for Google Chrome in Windows 7.
  6. Thanks Arthi. I have uninstalled Google Chrome from Windows 7. All the best to you.
  7. Thank you AndrewPP. I have read that. I note that Windows 10 imposes a default of 'enabled' for Bottom-up ASLR. I guess that this permissible by the developers of Google Chrome and so I guess that no dll injection is entailed. Windows 7 apparently does not impose such a default of 'enabled' for Bottom-up ASLR and so I am hoping that MBAE would be able to do this, notwithstanding the Google Chrome ban on dll injections into Google Chrome.
  8. Is MBAE still able to achieve enforcement of bottom-up ASLR for Google Chrome? In other words, does bottom-up ASLR enforcement not require dll injection?
  9. On further consideration, MBAE is better with Windows XP than MBAE 1.13 Build 60. I have noticed what seem to be intermittent 'pauses' while Mozllla Firefox ESR 45.9 is running with MBAE 1.13 Build 60.
  10. Hi Pedro. It's called enlightened self-interest. MBAE 1.13 Build 60 also works well with Windows XP (running on 17 year-old pre-SSE2 processor) but I do wonder whether or not an older version (I have been using might be more relevant to XP.
  11. The three month interval since the previous release of MBAE seems to have been well used. MBAE 1.13 Build 60 behaves very well with Windows 7 and Windows 10. Reading between the lines, I guess that a lot more work has been put into the latest MBAE than the brief summary information in the changelog would have us believe.
  12. Mozilla states that Firefox ESR will not block dll injections until 2020.
  13. https://borncity.com/win/2019/03/07/google-chrome-72-0-3626-121-closes-critical-vulnerability/#more-8824 Arrogant Google locks out MBAE and yet still perpetrates its own vulnerabilities. If ever there was evidence that a devil's advocate is needed for Chrome, this is it. Google cannot be trusted to ensure its unaided protection of the security of its own users. Google aids and abets hackers to do their insidious work silently and with impunity. Of course we cannot know if MBAE would have detected the exploits because Google excluded it.
  14. Previous aversion to https://www.dailymail.co.uk clickbait/scams (alleged) still present.
  15. I had to uninstall version 1.0.36 before successfully installing version 1.0.38. Now installed it seems no longer to assert its previous aversion to https://www.dailymail.co.uk.
  • Create New...

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.