hake

It is certainly slow with my pathetically feeble Windows 7 (64bit) AMD Sempron 3000 powered HP Presario ?but I am not in a rush.

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.

I am sticking with MBAE 1.12.1.109.

I am sticking with MBAE 1.12.1.109.

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.

I was asking about the abilities of MBAE.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for that.

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.

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.

MBAE.1.12.1.109 works just as well as MBAE 1.12.1.90 did. I am using an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ processor.

I know that Windows XP does not implement ASLR. However MBAE allows BottomUp ASLR Enforcement to be checked in the Application Hardening tab of Advanced Settings on a Windows XP system. Is there any point to this? Have I been deluding myself these past few years?

MBAE 1.12.1.89 behaves well on Windows XP SP3 and Windows 7 (64bit).

There have been no repetitions of the previously reported FP.

@dcollins I am very pleased that you could not replicate the behaviour that I experienced. I guess that Malwarebytes Chrome Extension is performing very well since I read no unhappy comments about it and this is good. I would like to see more information presented in the event of a warning by the extension as there was little that I could supply to you guys after the 'incident'. BTW, I wish that your website would display darker more contrasty text. My eyes are getting old and your website is becoming hard work to read. I have adjusted my display screen as much as it allows. Small grey/pale-blue text on a completely bright white background is conducive to snow-blindness. Compare it with the https://www.superantispyware.com/ site and you will see what I mean. That is a model of visual clarity.

No. The only thing I clicked on was the cookie notice to accept cookies. Whatever was tripping the Extension would have been on the page I entered the site on. It happened on two Windows 7 (x64) systems. Google Chrome is at version 67.0.3396.62 (32-bit) on both systems. Once I had received the Extension's warning I opted to continue and have received no further warnings with either system. No unwanted behaviour resulted.

I opened https://www.independent.co.uk and was warned no to enter it. This is the website of a very respected nationally distributed British newspaper. Unfortunately the extension yielded little actual information about whatever had been found objectionable. All that I can ask is that you have a look for yourselves. I have attached a screenshot. The extension put the following text in the address bar: - chrome-extension://ihcjicgdanjaechkgeegckofjjedodee/redirects/blockedMalware.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2F&host=www.independent.co.uk&type=malware&subtype=scam Malwarebytes Firefox Extension does not replicate the issue. NoScript reports the following domains which could have been active in the www.independent.co.uk website front page at the time that Malwarebytes Chrome Extension issued its warning: - independent.co.uk sail-horizon.com pagefair.com pagefair.net taboola.com gigya.com jquery.com facebook.net d3alqb8vzo7fun.cloudfront.net gscontxt.net omnitagis.com indexww.com exelator.com sharethrough.com cpx.to twitter.com brightcove.com scoreresearch.com mdotlabs.com chartbeat.com crwdcntrl.net google-analytics.com googletagservices.com moatads.com

The unavailability of Malware Firefox Extension for Firefox 45.9 prompted me to get to grips with NoScript. NoScript tells me exactly what domain names are or are not allowed and I have quickly become adept at deciding what I need to allow when the full content or behaviours are not available. I cannot believe that I could not have achieved this years ago. NoScript combined with Ghostery is a great combination. Having said that, I would still rather use MalwareBytes Firefox Extension, if only that were possible.

When I attempt to browse https://www.everydayhealth.com/gallbladder/gallbladder-polyps.aspx, the mouse pointer does not respond to links and I cannot dismiss the cookie notice. In fact the page is unresponsive. On disabling MalwareBytes Chrome extension, I can interact with the page. This comment applies to the present version (1.0.22) of Malwarebytes Chrome Extension. There is no problem evident when browsing via this URL with Mozilla Firefox and Malwarebytes Firefox Extension 1.0.21. The same issue occurs with: - https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_gallbladder_polyps/ask.htm I do not see a thread for reporting URLs of web pages which malfunction with MalwareBytes Chrome or Firefox Extensions. Please correct me if I am wrong. Does Malwarebytes Chrome Extension have a problem with gallbladder polyps?

While the MalwareBytes Browser Extension is much to be preferred, Ghostery 5.4.10 does a very passable job of blocking much nuisance stuff.